Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords] (Prince of Wales' Consent signified).

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Lochaber Water Power Bill (King's Consent signified).

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Preston Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order).

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Beading deferred till Monday next.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Down (North Down Division) in the room of THOMAS WATTERS
BROWN, Esquire (Solicitor-General for Ireland).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

EXTERNAL DEBT.

Return ordered, "showing, as on the 31st day of March, 1919, the 31st day of March, 1920, and the 31st day of March, 1921, respectively, the External Debt of this Country, the due date, and any arrangement which has been made for its repayment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 144 of Session 1920)."—[Mr. Wallace.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures showing every rise in the cost of petrol since 1912; whether he can state what was the value of the Government shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company on each occasion; and what were the profits of the company for each year since 1912?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I will have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL
REPORT, showing the changes in the price at which motor spirit was supplied by wholesale companies to garages and large consumers since 1912, and also showing the profits of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as stated in the balance sheets for the years ended March, 1914, and 1920. With reference to the second part of the question, I cannot add anything to the answer given to my Noble Friend on 3rd March last by the Leader of the House, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that all the petrol of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is under contract marketed by the Shell Company, and that the Anglo-Persian Company has no control whatever of the price of petrol?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no personal knowledge.

The following is the statement promised:—

Statement showing:—(1) The changes in the prices charged for No. 3 motor spirit by wholesale companies to garages and large consumers since 1912; and (2) the profits of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as stated in the balance sheets for the years ended March, 1914 to 1920:—


(1)


Date.
Price per gallon.




s.
d.


1912.
October 15th
1
4


1913.
February 24th
1
5


1914.
July 6th
1
3


1915.
September 15th
1
4



September 22nd
1
8



December 24th
1
9


1916.
May
2
5


1917.
May 24th
2
5¾



July 13th
2
8



September 3rd
3
4½



October 10th
3
2



November 26th
3
0½



December 18th
2
11½


1918.
May 1st
3
2



December 1st
3
0


1919.
January 1st
2
8½



May 19th
2
6


1920.
February 4th
3
2



August 30th
3
9



October 11th
3
6


1921.
January 1st
2
11



May 28th
2
5

(2)


Year ended.
Net Profit.*




£


1913.
March 31st
No trading account available.


1914.
March 31st
(Dr.) 26,711


1915.
March 31st
90,431


1916.
March 31st
85,768


1917.
March 31st
344,110


1918.
March 31st
1,308,558


1919.
March 31st
2,010,805


1920.
March 31st
2,611,165


* After providing for administration expenses, debenture interest, royalty, and depreciation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED MEAT (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any stocks of imported meat are still held by the Government for disposal in this country; if so, can he state approximately what the quantities are; if any of it is earmarked for Army and Navy use; and can he state what decision has been taken as to the disposal of any stocks held here?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. The stocks of imported meat held by the Government had been reduced to approximately 20,000 tons on the 3rd June, and are being disposed of as rapidly as the market conditions permit.

Mr. GILBERT: Does the Department propose to reduce the price of meat in order to get rid of these stocks?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall require notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: How long have these stocks been held by the Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are getting rid of them as fast as we can, and I hope very soon they will be entirely exhausted.

Sir F. HALL: Is this the same stock that was put into cold store by order of the Government 12 months ago?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.

Mr. BALDWIN: I will have that looked up.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Mr. GILBERT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any stocks of wool are still held by the Government for disposal in this country; if so, can he give approximately the quantities held; can he also state if it is Australian wool or has been imported from other countries; and can he give what decision has been arrived at by his Department as to the disposal of any stocks of wool now held?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to answer this question. With regard to the first, second, and last parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Grinstead on the 30th May. With regard to the third part of the question, the wool referred to has been imported from Australia, New Zealand, and, in the case of a very small quantity, from the Falkland Islands.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any figures showing the trade between England and Ireland for the five months of the present year, or any convenient period, and similar figures for the year 1920?

Mr. BALDWIN: Particulars of the total trade of Ireland, upon which the figures of the trade between Great Britain and Ireland are based, are published by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for calendar years only, and have not yet been published for the year 1920.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.

Major BARNES: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with what countries treaties, conventions, and engagements are in force which would have to be taken into account under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: In making Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, it would be necessary to consider any Treaty provisions which may be held to limit our action in respect
of the duties leviable on goods on importation into the United Kingdom. I am having circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries with which treaties, conventions, or engagements are in force which would have to be considered in this connection.

Major BARNES: Am I to understand it will be published in the Report of to-day's proceedings?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly. The list is a long one.

Following is the list mentioned:—

Treaties, Conventions, or Engagements in force between the United Kingdom and the undermentioned foreign countries contain provisions which would have to be considered on the ground that they may be held to limit the action of His Majesty's Government in respect of the duties leviable on the goods of their manufacture on importation into the United Kingdom.

Argentina.
Belgium.
Bolivia.
Colombia.
Costa Rica.
Denmark.
Esthonia.
Greece.
Honduras.
Italy.
Japan.
Liberia.
Mexico.
Netherlands.
Nicaragua.
Norway.
Paraguay.
Persia.
Portugal.
Rumania.
Serb-Croat-Slovene State.
Spain.
Sweden.
Switzerland.
United States.
Venezuela.

TRUSTS AND COMBINES (EXCLUSIVE CUSTOM).

Colonel NEWMAN: 5 and 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) whether his attention has been called to the restraint of freedom of commerce, and consequent enhancement of the price of commodities to the consumer, caused by the practice of trusts and combines, both international and British, to grant rebates of 10 per cent. to the retail purchaser or middleman if he will pledge himself not to do business with any rival concerns that are outside the trust, combine, or ring; does he intend to ask for powers to make such rebates invalid and punishable;
(2) whether he will seek powers to so modify the law that a manufacturer shall not be able to obtain judgment for the
payment of an account under a contract containing restrictive clauses or discounts for exclusive custom unless the Court, after considering all the circumstances, considers the terms of the contract as fair both towards the retailer, the middleman, and the purchasing public?

Mr. BALDWIN: Arrangements of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are not infrequent. Proposals for legislation on the lines indicated by him raise large and difficult questions of policy, on which I am not at present prepared to make any pronouncement, but the matter will be carefully considered in connection with any future legislation in respect of trusts and combinations.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in New Zealand the Commercial Trust Laws prohibit this practice, and that in China it could be punished with 40 blows?

WALL PAPER MANUFACTURERS, LIMITED.

Colonel NEWMAN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ascertain if a British trust, known as the Wall Paper Manufacturers, with an authorised capital of £5,000,000, gives a 10 per cent. rebate to dealers or decorators who pledge themselves not to deal with any concern outside the combine, with a further agreement that the rebate is at once repayable if it can be shown that they have dealt with any rival concern; and is he aware how gravely this restriction operates on the public by limiting their range of choice when making their purchases?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that an arrangement of the nature indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been in operation in connection with Wall Paper Manufacturers, Limited, for some time past; but no complaints from consumers as to any adverse effects of the arrangement have been made to my Department.

Colonel NEWMAN: If I bring cases before the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into them?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly. That is what I am here for.

WIRELESS OPERATORS (WATCHERS' CERTIFICATES).

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether over 1,200 hundred watchers' certificates have been issued; is he aware that if these men are all employed 600 skilled wireless operators will be thrown out of work; did he take this matter into consideration when he stated that the main cause of the unemployment amongst wireless operators was the present depression in shipping; and whether, seeing that it means permanent displacement for these wireless operators, he will reconsider this decision and rescind the Rules under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, introducing watchers for wireless telegraphy purposes, in view of the present state of unemployment in this country?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that over 1,200 watchers' certificates have been issued, but it is not correct to assume that the employment of each pair of watchers necessarily means the displacement of an operator who would otherwise have been employed. Under war conditions, the Mercantile Marine as a whole was required for defence purposes to carry more operators than are now necessary for safety purposes under peace conditions; and there was necessarily a reduction in the number of operators employed. The number has been further reduced by the depression in shipping. It is not proposed to alter the present Rules.

Mr. GWYNNE: Has any suggestion been made for finding employment for these men, who have been specially trained?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend knows that there is very great depression in the shipping trade at the present time, and I am very much afraid that many of these men will be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

BOARD OF TRADE (PUBLICITY BRANCH).

Mr. HURD: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of economy, he will now dispense with the publicity branch of his Department and rely on the public Press for the dissemination of information as to trade conditions; and, if not, what is the reason for retaining it?

Mr. BALDWIN: The whole of the work of the Board of Trade is at present under review, and I am unable to anticipate what action may be taken as regards any particular section.

Mr. HURD: Will they take care in that review that the findings of the Lytton Committee are followed and that any who are retained in this kind of service will be ex-service men.

Mr. BALDWIN: I will look into that.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the annual cost of this branch?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is quite small, but I have not the figures in my mind.

Mr. MYERS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the publicity service is still a part of the Department; if so, how many persons are employed in the service and at what salaries; and whether the functions of this Department include the giving out of special copy to some newspapers in connection with the coal dispute?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The publicity section consists of three people—

1 publicity officer at a salary of £950 and an allowance of £150 per annum for expenses.
1 temporary clerk at a weekly salary of £5 6s. inclusive.
1 shorthand typist at a weekly salary of £3 10s. inclusive.
In addition to their normal work of disseminating information as to trade conditions and other matters arising out of the work of the Board, these officers, during the past two months, have been assisting in bringing to the notice of the public the facts relating to the present coal dispute.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that we are paying for ex parte statements, made in an attempt to discredit the miners' case?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have chosen these words myself.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that this copy is being distributed by the secretaries of the Coalition Liberal and Unionist organisations throughout the country?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge of that. Perhaps the hon. Member will put any further questions down.

SALARIES AND BONUS.

Captain TERRELL: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if the Cabinet would consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Superannuation Acts so that the House of Commons could control the public expenditure connected with the salaries, war bonuses, and pensions of all civil servants; and, in the event of this not being possible, will he state the considered objections of the Cabinet to such a proposition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Salaries and bonus are not regulated by Statute, and alterations in them do not require legislative sanction. Salaries are voted annually by the House.

Captain TERRELL: Was the Financial Secretary correct when replying to me in stating that the Treasury has full power to increase the salaries or the bonus of civil servants under the Superannuation Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend is quoting from, but salaries are of course regulated at intervals by the Treasury, but subject to the control of this House.

Captain TERRELL: In the event of any movement taking place to compound the war bonus and salaries, will the House have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir William Davison.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. I have asked several questions on this subject day after day and I cannot get a clear answer from the Front Bench. Only the other day—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not argue. The question which he has put on the Paper has been answered.

WOMEN.

Major HILLS: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now say when a day will be given to discuss the position of women in the Civil Service?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not in a position to name a day.

Major HILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say at what time we can get this Debate? Is he aware it has been very often postponed in deference to the wishes of the Government, and is he also aware that there is an examination fixed for the end of July, making it important this question should be settled?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware the question is one of great importance and that it was postponed—I think before Easter—probably to meet the convenience of the Government. I am very sorry I cannot yet fix a day. I think if my hon. Friend considers the state of business he will recognise the difficulty of fixing a day.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware we have too many civil servants at present?

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (PUBLICITY).

Mr. HURD: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport why it is necessary to continue to employ a publicity staff at his Ministry, seeing that the public Press is available for the dissemination of all information of public interest?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): One of my private secretaries is principally employed in giving to writers and Press representatives information which is available for publication without discrimination.

Mr. HURD: Is he an ex-service man?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, Sir.

MINING ASSOCIATION (Mr. W. A. LEE).

Mr. MYERS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Mr. Lee, now an official of the coal owners' organisation, was formerly in the service of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade; if so, what was his status and salary; and what were the pension prospects surrendered when he left the Board of Trade for the Coal Owners' Association?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): Mr. W. A. Lee, who is now the assistant secretary to the Mining Association of Great Britain, was formerly a permanent official of the Board
of Trade, and for a time acted as Secretary to the Coal Mines Department. In that capacity his salary was £1,000 a year, inclusive of war bonus. Had Mr. Lee remained in the Civil Service he would have been entitled, on his retirement at the age of 60, to a pension calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Acts on his emoluments at the date of retirement.

Mr. J. JONES: Is it going to be the general practice that civil servants are to be allowed to take jobs on under these conditions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is a free country.

BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any interest has yet been received on the capital invested by the Government in the British Dyestuffs Corporation; if so, what; and what amount of net receipts from this investment is expected during the coming years?

Mr. BALDWIN: The dividends on the Government investment in the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, have hitherto been at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum on the non-cumulative preference shares and 8 per cent. per annum on the preferred ordinary shares, and the net amounts received to date are £43,424 10s. 6d. and £49,693 2s. 8d., respectively. I am unable to anticipate the dividends for future years.

Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £1 shares of this company have fallen to 2s., and does he know what is the market value at the present time of the Government's holdings in this company?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I do not.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that there are many enterprises, including shipping, where shares were issued at par and are now worth nothing?

PHOSPHATE, NAURU.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the net receipts to date received on be-
half of the Governments of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, respectively, from the sale of phosphate from the island of Nauru?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): I have at present no information on the subject. I will make inquiry of the British Phosphate Commissioners, and communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is this amount paid to the Colonial Office or direct to the British Treasury?

Mr. WOOD: I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the League of Nations take any percentage?

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present holding of the British Government in the British Cellulose Company; and what are the net receipts from this investment to date?

Mr. GLANVILLE: 108.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount which the Government has invested in the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited; what is the amount of interest or dividend which the Government has received thereon for the year 1920; how many directors the Government has appointed to the board of directors of the company; and what is the remuneration of a director of the company?

Mr. YOUNG: The Government holds 1,450,000 7½ per cent. "A" cumulative participating preference shares in the company. No dividend has been received thereon for the year 1920. There are two Government directors on the board, who receive fees at the rate of £500 a year each.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the Government consider cutting their losses and ceasing to subsidise this concern, in accordance with the desire expressed by the President of the Board of Trade last week?

Mr. YOUNG: My hon. Friend will see that that question involves a question of policy which will have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Government subsidising this company at the present time? Is there any further subsidy being given?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They have appointed two directors at £500 a year each.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

RAILWAYS (LOSSES).

Sir F. HALL: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated loss to the railways up to the present time due to the curtailment and loss of traffic and other causes arising out of the coal strike; and if he will state how such loss will be met?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply to this question. The claims against the Government shown in the accounts presented by the controlled railways for the month of March amounted to nearly £3,500,000, and for the month of April to over £9,500,000. No later figures are available. The loss will fall upon the general taxpayer through the operation of the railway agreements and a Supplementary Estimate has been presented to Parliament so that the Government's obligation to the companies may be met.

FOREIGN COAL.

Mr. W. THORNE: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of tons of foreign coal that has been imported into this country during the month of May; what was the selling price of the coal to the buyers; whether any of the coal has been tested with the view of finding out whether the foreign coal is as good as steam navigation coal for generating purposes; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The quantity of foreign coal imported during the month of May, 1921, as shown in the Trade and Navigation Returns, was 450,162 tons; and the average declared value per ton c.i.f. was 68s. 2d. The selling price to the buyers cannot be stated; it would include apart from the c.i.f. value many items such as the expense of handling and transport, of which no return is made. I do not propose to take any action in
the matter of testing this coal, which comprises widely differing qualities. I presume that intending buyers have satisfied themselves as to its suitability for their respective requirements.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have bought many thousand tons of foreign coal, chiefly German coal, and whether they have been selling it to private individuals; and, if so, can he state what amount of profit has been made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Government have been buying coal from various countries abroad, and selling it for public utilty purposes. I do not know of any cases where abnormal profits can be said to have been made.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the price paid for this coal was higher than the price that would have provided a decent wage for the workers of this country in producing coal?

Mr. R. McLAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the exception of Wales, very little navigation coal is produced and that the bulk of the coal produced in this country for steam raising is ordinary bituminous coal?

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines what ports in the United Kingdom foreign coal is being imported into; whether importers are allowed to import what quantities they like; whether at every port such imported coal is being freely handled by all classes of labour concerned, or if there are any ports where coal is not handled; and, if so, will he give the names of such ports?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Foreign coal has been imported into a very large number of British ports, some 60 in all, including the Thames, Mersey, Clyde, Forth and Humber ports, Southampton, Bristol and Sharpness. A considerable quantity has also been brought into Ireland. There is no restriction on the quantity of foreign coal allowed to be imported by merchants. Foreign coal is now being freely handled by all classes of labour concerned at the ports to which it has been sent.

MINE OFFICIALS (CERTIFICATES).

Mr. R. McLAREN: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines if representations have been made to him to compel mine officials above the rank of deputies or firemen and below the rank of first-class certificated managers to have a second-class certificate; and, if so, will he consult the Institution of Mining Engineers before coming to a decision on the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I shall be glad to consider the suggestion made in the second part.

Mr. McLAREN: Is the right hon. Member aware that if he carries this into effect he will compel a large number of men to be deprived of employment, and that these men are good, practical men; and does he mean to suggest that men getting a certificate are better than practical men, even if they have no certificate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All I suggest is that I should like to consult, as my hon. Friend desires, the Institute of Mining Engineers, and if what he says is correct, no doubt that will be taken into consideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS.

Major GLYN: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport how much money has been allocated since 1st January to Scottish local authorities to assist in the construction and maintenance of roads; whether the classification of roads in Scotland has yet been completed; and whether he will convene a conference of local authorities in Scotland to decide upon all outstanding questions between local authorities and himself on the subject of road classification?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the answer to this question contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major GLYN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to hold a conference with Scottish local authorities?

Sir E. GEDDES: Conferences have been going on all the time.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Has any money been allocated to Ireland in respect of roads?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please put that question on the Order Paper.

The following is the answer:

In addition to the sums to be allocated to Scotland under the new classification scheme, grants and loans have been made or indicated from the Road Fund to Scottish local authorities between the 1st January and the 31st May, 1921, as under:


Ordinary Road and Bridge Works.



Grants made
£97,081


Grants indicated but not actually made
56,465



£154,546


Loans
£5,894


Unemployment Works.



Grants made
£157,822


Grants indicated but not actually made
357



£158,179

The classification of roads in Scotland has been completed. As I have explained on previous occasions, the classification is a provisional one for this year, and any representations submitted by highway authorities for its revision will receive full consideration. The Director-General of Roads is arranging to hold conferences with the local authorities in Scotland for the discussion of outstanding questions, including classification, as soon as convenient dates can be fixed.

Major PRESCOTT: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the proposed terms of contribution set out in the circular issued by the Ministry on the 9th May, 1921, in respect of the classification of roads are not acceptable to many of the highway authorities; that the Ministry's proposals with regard to loan repayments concerning liabilities incurred previous to the passing of the Roads Act are regarded with much disfavour; and if he will consider the desirability of removing this restriction, having regard to the fact that it penalises those road authorities which
have carried out large surfacing improvements on a loan policy prior to August, 1919?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that certain exceptions are taken to the Ministry's proposals in the circular of the 9th May with regard to repayments of loan charges in respect of expenditure incurred prior to August, 1919. Deputations are being received from the various highway authority associations upon this question.

HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC.

Major GLYN: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of granting powers to local authorities to prohibit the use of certain roads to heavy motor traffic, passenger-carrying or otherwise; whether local authorities are to be held liable for the extraordinary damage done to road surfaces and bridges by abnormally heavy motor traffic; and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the annual tax on all motor vehicles unprovided with pneumatic tyres?

Sir E. GEDDES: The point raised in the first part of the question is met by Section 7 (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the third part of the question, the reply is in the negative.

VEHICLES DUTIES.

Viscount CURZON: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport the gross revenue derived from the duties on motor and other vehicles for the five months ending 31st May, 1921, specifying the revenue obtained from quarterly and annual licences respectively; the actual amount paid to highway authorities from the road fund during the said period; and the amount which it is estimated will be paid out of the road fund to highway authorities for the financial year ending 31st December, 1921?

Sir E. GEDDES: All returns have not yet been received, but estimating the receipt on the basis of those available and on past returns, the gross revenue derived from the duties on motor and other vehicles for the five months ending 31st May, 1921, is approximately £8,740,000. Of this, £8,040,000 is in respect of annual licences and £700,000 on account of quarterly licences. The actual amount paid to highway authorities from
the Road Fund during the five months ended 31st May, 1921, was £2,863,243. It is estimated that approximately £11,000,000 will be paid out of the Road Fund to highway authorities during the calendar year ending 31st December, 1921. The excess over the proceeds of motor taxation will be met from accumulated resources.

Sir M, DOCKRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the sum mentioned was collected from Ireland?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would require notice of that question.

Sir F. HALL: Will he say if the amount of revenue obtained from the motor car duties is quite up to the anticipations of the Government, and does it correspond with the figures estimated by them?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, Sir, with extraordinary accuracy.

WORKMEN'S RAILWAY FARES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a big reduction of wages is taking place in many parts of the country, ranging from 10s. to 25s. per week; if he is prepared to bring about a reduction of railway fares for workmen's tickets; and if he will take action in the matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that in many industries reductions in wages are taking place, but the fares charged to workpeople travelling by cheap early trains are still on a very low basis, in comparison with those fixed for other classes of travel. I fear that I should not be justified in taking the action suggested.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the increase in workmen's railway tickets was put on, it involved an increase of 2s. a week, which in some cases meant 10s. a week to a family?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a repetition of the same question in another form.

Mr. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered what I asked him.

RAILWAYS (ENGINEERING TRADE UNIONS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is contemplated that the questions affecting the supervisory and working grades in the en-
gineering and allied trades employed on railways are to be settled by bodies upon which the three trade unions who are parties to the agreement have representation, but upon which the unions representing the supervisory and other employés referred to above have no representation; and whether, in this event, the Government propose to give one group of unions a share in the control of men belonging to a different and distinct group?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the question asked in the second part does not, therefore, arise. I would point out that it is not intended that the machinery proposed to be set up by Part IV of the Railways Bill should deal with the wages and conditions of service of railway shopmen.

INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Major BARNES: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if the Industrial Council set up in 1911 by the Board of Trade is in being; if so, whether it could be usefully employed in the coal, cotton, and engineering disputes; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of re-establishing it for that purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. The Industrial Council referred to is no longer in being, and the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question therefore does not arise, but I am inclined to doubt whether a council constituted in this manner could have played a useful part in the coal, cotton or engineering disputes. Experience shows, I think, that trades such as these would be jealous of interference from a body representative of other industries. The whole question of the relations between employers and employed was considered by the Committee presided over by Mr. Speaker, and the machinery for conciliation or arbitration, or for the appointment of courts of inquiry, prescribed in the Industrial Courts Act, represents the policy advocated by that Committee.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although a great amount of machinery has been established under the Act, the employers are now refusing to honour the findings?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of any cases of that kind, but if my hon. Friend will draw my attention to them I will look into them.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only this afternoon there was a conference in connection with the tramway industry, and a report was given that wages should not be reduced before the end of the year, but the employers are now demanding an immediate reduction? Is not that a variation of the findings of the Court?

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of the Government for dealing with the present industrial position and the relations between capital and labour; whether it includes a recognition of the community of interest between employers and employed and the encouragement of the participation of the workmen in the management and profits of industry; and whether the Government intend, to take any steps to promote the revival and efficiency of the Industrial Council established in 1919?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of the Government in this matter is based on the recommendations of the Committee on the Relations between Employers and Employed, presided over by Mr. Speaker. The main recommendations of that Committee concerned the setting up in organised industries of Joint Industrial Councils, representative of employers' associations and trade unions, to deal with matters of common interest to employers and workpeople. Such councils exist and are functioning in 70 industries. The Committee also made certain recommendations for the settlement of industrial disputes, which were carried out in substance by the Industrial Courts Act of 1919. The policy includes a recognition of the community of interests between employers and employed, but the Committee refrained from making suggestions as to participation in profits. In reply to the last part of the question, the National Industrial Council was not actually set up. This was due to a number of reasons, but mainly to the fact that it could not be made fully representative of the trade unions of the country. If my Noble Friend has any suggestions on this matter to make, they shall be carefully considered.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not a fact that although the Industrial Council was not fully representative of all the trade unions, yet it was representative of the great majority of the trade unions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It failed to secure the support of some of the largest and most influential unions in the country. That is the main reason.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principle of profit-sharing in industry has over and over again been condemned and repudiated by practically every working-class organisation in the country?

Lord R. CECIL: Was it not supported by the Leader of Labour?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I ought to be invited to debate profit-sharing in answer to questions in the House.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all cases where the employers are now asking for a reduction of wages the workmen are asking for arbitration under the Act mentioned, and that the employers in every case are refusing to go to arbitration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES).

Mr. MILLS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the 270 Members who accepted railway passes; and whether he will consider the case of those Members who surrendered their season tickets when passes were issued, and are now compelled to pay until the end of June ordinary fares, and are thus worse off than before this concession was given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The names of hon. Members who used the travelling facilities offered to them are not known to me, and I do not propose to inquire into them. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to my previous answers. The business of the Government is to give effect to the decision of the House.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not know the names of Members who received these passes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it is a fact.

Mr. KENNEDY: Has not a record been kept of each of these railway warrants, and is it not an easy matter to ascertain to whom these warrants have been issued?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt that that is so. A record must have been kept by the accounting officer or the authorities of the House, but the names are not known to me, and I see no public purpose to be served by inquiring into them.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not or will not take the trouble to find out from the officers who issued these coupons the names of the individuals who have got them, and how many coupons each Member has used?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to do that. I do not see what public purpose would be served by it. Perhaps it is my fault, but I am at a loss to understand the object of these questions. The Government suggested that certain facilities should be given to certain Members. These facilities were given to certain Members, who used these facilities in good faith. When the matter was discussed in the House the House decided that they should be discontinued, and they have been discontinued accordingly, and I cannot see what public purpose is served by inquiring into who used those facilities.

Mr. J. JONES: Is it not a fact that a large number of those who were most strong in their opposition to these facilities being granted were the first to use them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be so.

Mr. JONES: I know it.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government intends to take to carry into effect the demand of the people of this country, as expressed in the recent by-election in the Saint George's Division of Westminster, for an immediate reduction in Government expenditure; and whether, having regard to the openly expressed will of the electors, the Government will take steps to effect economies
now instead of waiting until next year, as was foreshadowed by the Circular issued by the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken in believing that economies are being postponed until next year, and if he will read the Treasury Circular to which he refers he will see that it states expressly that it is very desirable that the economies should be brought into operation this year.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is it intended to make any definite cuts in this year's Estimates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Such definite cuts as can be made in definite public services.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the result of the Saint George's election show that what we need is a reversal of the policy which leads to expenditure?

Mr. J. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the result of the Heywood election?

EMPIRE COTTON GROWING ASSOCIATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have authorised the grant of £1,000,000, said to have been promised by the Colonial Secretary to the British Cotton-growing Association; and is he aware that most agencies for the purchase of cotton from natives in Africa are at present closed down by reason of the low-price of cotton and the heavy stocks on hand?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. No grant is proposed to be made to the British Cotton Growing Association. In pursuance of the recommendations made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Cotton Growing within the Empire, a scheme has been prepared for the formation of an Empire cotton growing corporation, to be established under Royal Charter, and in the administration of which His Majesty's Government, the Governments of the cotton growing areas of the Empire, and trade interests will all participate. The corporation will not be a profit-making body, and its object will be the develop-
ment of cotton growing in the Empire by provision of opportunities for training in tropical agriculture and connected subjects, the promotion of research, the establishment of experimental farms, co-operation with the agricultural departments of present or potential cotton growing areas within the Empire, and in such other ways as may be appropriate. The cotton industry in this country has agreed to a voluntary levy at the rate of 6d. a bale on all cotton consumed for a minimum period of five years, and the proposed grant of approximately £1,000,000 by the Government for the purposes of the corporation is conditional on this support from the trade. In the current Estimates the sum of £50,000 is taken for this year as the first of five annual votes for a corresponding sum for the promotion of cotton growing in the Empire; and the proposed capital grant is in lieu of these annual contributions. The grant is not to be derived from the taxpayer, but is His Majesty's Government's share of the surplus accruing from the operation of the Egyptian Cotton Control Scheme of 1918–19 which was carried out under a joint guarantee from the British and Egyptian Governments. I am aware that the general depression has for the time reduced very gravely in some parts of Africa the price at which cotton can be bought from the native grower, and that certain buying agencies have withdrawn from the business for the present, but other agencies are still continuing at work.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's answer a restatement of the fact that we are not granting £1,000,000 to encourage the growth of cotton in the British Empire, and that the money is coming, not out of the pocket of the British taxpayers but out of the pocket of the Egyptian taxpayer? Is it an example of the new economy of the Government, that you are going to charge the Egyptian Government with the cost?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Angora Government have been receiving arms and ammunition from the Russian Soviet Bolshevik Republican
Revolutionary Government; whether this is an infringement of the trade agreement, in view of the fact that the Angora Government are in a state of war with this country; and, in view of the fact that Article XIII of the Russian trade agreement provides that either party shall be free from the obligation of the agreement if either party shall violate it, he will give the necessary notice asking for an explanation, in accordance with Article XIII.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In spite of many rumours to that effect, His Majesty's Government have no definite information that the Turkish Nationalists have been receiving arms and ammunition from the Russian Soviet Government. The occasion, therefore, for the action suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend cannot be said to have arisen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present situation at Constantinople and the Straits; why large British naval forces are being concentrated there; and whether all means of bringing about peace by negotiations have been exhausted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil on 18th April. With regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have not yet abandoned the hope of bringing about peace between the Greeks and Turks and will lose no opportunity of doing so.

Viscount CURZON: Are any active steps being taken towards that end?

Mr. A. HERBERT: Why, since the Dardanelles have been neutralised, has the Greek Fleet been allowed to go through these neutral waters and bombard open undefended towns on the coast of the Black Sea?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Without accepting the allegations of my hon. Friend I think that I may fairly put it to the House that that is a question of which I should have notice. The question to which the hon. and gallant Member (Viscount Curzon) refers is engaging the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but on an occasion of so much delicacy and in which action with the Allied Powers is necessary I would ask
the House not to bombard me with questions which may be injurious to the public interest.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that we are not giving moral support to the Constantine Greeks in these matters?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question on the Paper.

Viscount CURZON: Have we a naval attaché with the Greek naval forces at present operating in the Black Sea, and are we getting complete information as to what they are doing?

Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly the hon. Member must give notice of the question.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have come to a decision as to whether they intend actively to support King Constantine of Greece in a war against the Turkish Nationalists although the French Government have declared they will help neither in men nor in money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government has throughout been one of strict neutrality between the combatants, and no decision to depart from that attitude has been taken. As stated in reply to an earlier question, His Majesty's Government still hope that in conjunction with their Allies it may be possible to bring about peace between the Greeks and Turks.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Should any decision be taken, will this House be consulted before any irrevocable action is taken by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend knows that the Government have on all occasions sought to take the House into their confidence at the earliest possible moment in these matters. Some measure of discretion must be left to the executive Government. The interests of the country will be properly protected.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May not irrevocable action be forced on the Government through a Turkish advance on British troops at present standing behind the Greeks, and will the Government consider the withdrawal of those British troops?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one reason why executive action must be left to the discretion of the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government withdraw their troops, as the French have done?

Major GLYN: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement in regard to the situation in Asia Minor, especially the attitude that the Government proposes to adopt in the event of the reopening of hostilities between the Greek and Turkish Nationalist forces; what is the present position at Constantinople; and have the British authorities there freedom of independent action under the sole direction of the British Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer to the answers I have already given to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. The answer to the last part of the question is that while the British authorities at Constantinople are under the sole direction of His Majesty's Government, the policy pursued there by His Majesty's Government is determined in concert with the French and Italian Governments.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it still part of the policy of the Government, as frequently outlined by the Prime Minister, that no body of Christians who have been liberated by treaties shall be given back to the bloodstained government of the Turks?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman must put a question on the Paper on that subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Prime Minister what are the commitments of His Majesty's Government to the Greek Government; and when these will be explained to the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Member refers to commitments to support Greece against the Kemalists by by military or financial means, I can only inform him that no such commitments exist.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we any commitments in connection with the present troubles in Asia Minor,
apart from military or financial support? Are we committed to help the Greeks in certain eventualities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question which I have answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

IRISH PARLIAMENTS (SURPLUS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the surplus which will be available for the Irish Parliaments on the basis of the estimated yield of this year's Budget, and hew this amount compares with the surplus shown in the financial memoranda issued in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to issue a statement shortly.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached to discontinue as authorised military reprisals in Ireland the destruction of the property of those against whom no crime can be proved?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Harrow on 9th June. I would add that the Commander-in-Chief has recently issued orders that every action taken against property must be based on strictly military grounds defined by military orders.

Captain W. BENN: Has a decision been reached as to affording compensation to those punished under the previous policy?

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it the alleged on Saturday, that the Government have decided to stop reprisals in the meantime?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer that in the main reply, taken in connection with a previous answer to the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) on 9th June.

Mr. M. SCOTT: Have the Government decided to stop reprisals?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only
last week the competent military authority in Cork published a notice in the Press to the effect that they had burned two houses in connection with the murder of some policemen, although the owners of those houses were in no way accused of any participation in this hideous crime? In view of the right hon. Gentlemen's answer, would he say whether this kind of reprisal, long after the event and where there is no direct participation, will now be brought to an end?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer that by saying that the Commander-in-Chief has recently issued an order that every action taken against property must be based on strictly military grounds defined by military orders. If there be any infraction of that, it will be for the Commander-in-Chief to deal with it.

Mr. M. SCOTT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, not relating to the Commander-in-Chief, whether there has been any decision by the Government to stop reprisals?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is impossible to answer that, for this reason, that different Members of the House have different definitions of the word "reprisals". My best answer is an answer that refers to the whole action of the Crown forces in Ireland, and I think it is an answer that meets the view of the House as exemplified in the recent Debate.

Lord R. CECIL: What is meant by the phrase "military grounds"?

Captain BENN: Will compensation be paid to the innocent victims of the earlier policy?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are still many more questions on the Paper.

DISTURBANCES, BELFAST.

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary if he can give the House any information with regard to the tragic events that have taken place in Belfast during the week-end?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I only received notice of the hon. Member's question at twenty minutes past two to-day. I wired to Belfast, but I regret that up to the present I have not received any information.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I did not mean any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I explain that I sent the question to him after I had read what appeared in the very long accounts in some of the evening papers to-day with regard to these events.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman never get information of these events unless a question is put to him?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly. Reports are forwarded regularly to Dublin Castle from all parts of Ireland, and are sent, as soon as they are received, to me in London, but I have not received anything further than has already been issued to the public Press.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any good reason why the information takes so much longer to reach the right hon. Gentleman than it does to reach the ordinary sources of information?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Ordinary sources of information can give what they wish. I can only speak on the information of those officials on whom I rely.

HOSPITALS (FINANCIAL POSITION).

Colonel MILDMAY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he can find it possible to take steps which will result in immediate action based on the recommendations of Lord Cave's Report with reference to the financial position of hospitals?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): The matter is now before the Cabinet, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject in the course of the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UPPER SILESIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Prime Minister to state what is the present situation in Upper Silesia; and whether the suggestion has been made that a certain zone in Upper Silesia might be occupied by Allied troops for a term of years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The situation in Upper Silesia is generally unaltered. But reinforcements having now arrived,
it is hoped that the forces at the disposal of the Commission will be adequate to enable it to restore order at an early date. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any further information as to the proposed conference to discuss this matter between ourselves and our French allies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the whole military direction of the allied troops in Upper Silesia in the hands of the French, and can we expect any improvement as long as that military direction is in the hands of sympathisers with the Polish insurgents?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the policy last enunciated by the Prime Minister unaltered in regard to Upper Silesia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIALS).

Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what is the number of Germans included in the lists of war criminals drawn up by the Allies who are accused of sinking hospital ships; whether the Allies will be precluded from proceeding further with these, in view of the acquittal by the Leipzig court in the only case of this kind that has so far been tried, on the ground that the officer concerned was acting under orders; and whether, in view of this decision, the crime rolls will be revised so as to include those responsible for giving such orders?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply. The number referred to in the first part of the question is four. As to to the rest of the question, what has taken place at Leipzig does not impair the rights of the Allies under the Treaty. Their further action will be jointly resolved upon when the present series of trials is concluded.

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Captain-lieutenant Neumann, who was charged at Leipzig with the crime, of torpedoing the hospital ship "Dover Castle," was acquitted partly on the ground that such action is
justified in the case of a ship used for the conveyance of soldiers wounded in a land battle; and whether, in view of the gravity of the position which this decision creates by legalising such an act of inhumanity, the Government proposes to take steps for the question to be considered by the League of Nations, with a view to an international agreement being come to on the subject?

Sir G. HEWART: I have been asked to reply to this question. Until the full report of the judgment is received, it is not possible to say whether the ground of acquittal suggested in the question was relied upon by the court. Before the judgment has been received and considered, it would be premature to decide upon the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally satisfied with the manner in which these trials have been conducted, and if he is not, will he take steps to see that these higher authorities have proper indictments brought against them and that the trials are conducted in accordance with the ordinary custom recognised in this country?

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and gallant Friend is, I know, the soul of fairness, and he will not ask me to answer the question as to whether or not I am satisfied, when he knows my information is incomplete. I do not think I should in fairness to this House, express an opinion upon insufficient information.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the importance of this matter, and the number of times we have been told that these trials should have taken place under the jurisdiction of the British Government, if I put down a question in a fortnight's time, does he think he will be able to give a reply?

Sir G. HEWART: I certainly hope so. I shall give a reply at the earliest possible moment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received reports from the Solicitor-General, the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir E. Hume-Williams), and the other representatives of His Majesty's Government who went to Leipzig?

Sir G. HEWART: I have received several reports, but I have not yet re-
ceived the full report of the evidence and the judgment.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the British Government accepts the ruling made under the German Penal Code in reference to the sinking of the hospital ship?

Sir G. HEWART: It is not a question of accepting or not accepting any ruling. I understand from the reports that, according to German law, it is a good answer to a charge, even where some act containing the element of crime has been committed, to say, "I acted under superior orders." In our law that is not the case. Under our law, in such a case, everybody concerned is liable—

Mr. J. JONES: Is that so in Ireland?

Sir G. HEWART: But that is not, as I say, the German law. The question of accepting German law does not arise. What has happened here is that a number of cases have been, by request, submitted to the German courts, in order that they may give an indication of their good faith. Whether they have succeeded or not is a matter for consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would that apply in Cork?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon we may expect the report of the evidence and judgment in the Neumann case, and whether, in view of the importance of the question, he will bring it before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. J. JONES: Is he aware that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to a question a few moments ago, said that in Ireland military necessity decided such cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the question this day fortnight.

HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the reasons why the French Government have not yet ratified the Hungarian Peace Treaty; and whether such non-ratification is being used in connection with any pressure for reparations from Hungary?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The French Chamber has now ratified the Treaty, which may therefore be expected to come into force at an early date.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EXPENDITURE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious state of the national finances, the Government will issue a circular letter to all local authorities throughout the country on the lines of the Cabinet Minute issued to Government Departments in December last, urging that no new financial obligations should be incurred except in matters or urgent necessity, and that the strictest economy should be observed in the administration of all services already in operation?

Sir A. MOND: I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of a circular letter issued to local authorities in February last. He will see that the circular is on the lines suggested by him, and I will consider whether any further action is necessary.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any result in the way of reduction of expenditure on the part of local authorities by reason of the circulation of this circular?

Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the experience of any local authority that is doing half as much work as it did before the War, and yet its rates are increasing?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot answer that without considerable investigation. I have heard of instances of economies being effected as a result of the circular. If the hon. Member will put down another question, I might be able to give him further information.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Would the right hon. Gentleman make a specific proposal to the local authorities for a reduction of 20 per cent. in their expenditure, upon the lines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's circular to the Government Departments?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the local authorities are faced with a great deal of unemployment? How can they reduce expenditure if they
have to face demands from thousands of people for employment in their locality?

Sir A. MOND: After all, I am not responsible for the finance of local authorities. The local authorities are responsible to the ratepayers. It is not for me to lay down any fixed figure.

Mr. J. JONES: They have to face the music, not you!

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GOLD (EXPORT TO ENGLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the statements in the French Press regarding the Russian trade agreement, if he can state the value of the gold which it is alleged has been transferred from Russia to England since the Agreement was signed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know to what statements my hon. and gallant Friend is referring. I am not aware of any but very trifling import of gold from Russia in the last few months.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the correspondence which has recently passed between His Majesty's Government and the French Government with reference to the Russian Trade Agreement be placed before the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know of the correspondence to which the hon. Member is referring, but in any case I should have notice of a question of that kind.

DR. MCCARTAN.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any information with reference to a man named McCartan, who was in March last diplomatic representative in Russia of the so-called Sinn Fein Republic; whether they have any information that he is still in Russia; and, if so, as this is primâ facie proof that the Bolshevik Government is breaking the conditions of the Russian Trade Agreement, he will take steps to demand an explanation under Article XIII?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is understood that Dr. McCartan is in Russia, but I do not know in what capacity.

REFUGEES, CYPRUS.

Mr. ROYCE: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Russian refugees in camps in the island of Cyprus; whether these refugees are mostly composed of the remnants of Denikin's and Wrangel's armies; what is the cost to the British Government for the maintenance of these camps; whether the refugees make any contribution towards their support; and how much longer will these camps be maintained?

Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: Russian refugees in camps in Cyprus number 590, and they are composed entirely of refugees who left South Russia after General Denikin's defeat. The cost of maintaining these camps is £2,800 per month. There are an additional 72 refugees now maintaining themselves outside the camps. I regret that it is impossible to give any definite date by which the camps will be closed, but I can assure the hon. Member that every effort is being made to bring the obligations of His Majesty's Government to an end.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would not the camps close automatically if you ceased to give them this relief?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That would be a very harsh method.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would they not then find some work to do?

TITHE REDEMPTION, SUTTON BRIDGE.

Mr. ROYCE: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to redeem the tithe on some 5,000 acres of land in the parishes of Sutton Bridge and Lutton; whether the present tithe owner pays £809 in rates for these two parishes; whether, if redemption is brought about, the other ratepayers, mainly occupiers of land, will have to pay that amount between them; and whether in the parish of Sutton Bridge redemption of tithe will mean an addition of a 2s. rate?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Ministry is taking steps to redeem the tithe rent-charge charged on its lands at Sutton Bridge and Lutton. The usual particulars as to the rates paid on the tithe rent-charge have not yet been received
from the local rating authorities, but the Ministry is informed by the collector of the lay tithe rent-charge that the amount of rates paid by the lay impropriator for these two parishes last year was £809. This payment was, however, apparently in respect of the whole of the £1,938 lay tithe rent-charge payable in these two parishes, of which sum the Ministry is redeeming £1,134 only. The effect of the redemption is to increase the rateable value of the property liable to the tithe rent-charge. I am not in a position to express an opinion as to the extent (if any) to which the redemption will involve an addition to the rates on the properties of the other owners in these two parishes.

Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the redemption of these tithes will impose on some very poor persons a very considerable additional burden?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As I have pointed out, I do not know that it will, because if you redeem tithe rent-charge and in future rates are not paid, that ipso facto increases the rateable value of the property on which the tithe was formerly paid.

SMALL HOLDERS, HUNTINGDONSHIRE.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the rent-roll in Huntingdonshire received by the county council from smallholders and ex-soldiers amounted in 1920 to £31,990 16s. 5d., of which not 1s. is in arrear, in spite of the fact that all the tenants are poor men; and whether, in view of this satisfactory situation, he will accelerate the overdue housing schemes for ex-soldier smallholders in Huntingdonshire?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry is informed by the county council that the statement in the first part of my hon. Friend's question as to rents is substantially correct, the arrears outstanding at present being £60 only, all of which will be recoverable. I am glad to take this opportunity of congratulating the county council and the small holding tenants on the satisfactory position. The number of houses proposed for small holding schemes submitted by the county council is under
30. The council have hitherto experienced great difficulty in obtaining tenders at reasonable prices. Better tenders are, however, now being obtained, and several small schemes likely to meet the ascertained local demand are in course of approval by the Ministry.

BREAD (PRICE).

Mr. FORREST: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in providing for decontrol of cultivation, the Board has formed any idea, and, if so, what, of its effect in the near future on the price of bread?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Part I of the Agriculture Act did not affect in any way the market prices of wheat which are governed by the world's supply and demand. Its repeal, therefore, will not affect the price of bread.

LEAD PAINTS.

Mr. HANNON: 69.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the recent experience of the Office of Works has demonstrated that leadless paints do not possess the quality of durability in the same degree as lead paints; whether the use of leadless paints has been shown to be less economical than that of lead paints; whether any estimate can be given of the cost of the maintenance of public buildings by the use of leadless paints since 1906 compared with the cost of maintenance by the use of white lead and other lead paints from 1892 to 1906; and whether any Report has been prepared by His Majesty's Office of Works on the subject of the relative economic values of lead paints and leadless paints?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): In connection with the consideration by the Government of the general question of the prohibition of the use of lead paints, which is to be discussed at the International Labour Conference next October, the experience of the Office of Works with leadless paints is being carefully reviewed for the information of the Home Office, and I am not in a position at the present time to make any statement on the subject.

INDIAN ARMY (BANDS).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for India the result of his inquiry from the Government of India as to the upkeep in future of regimental bands in the Indian Army and how far the cost of these bands is to be dependent on subscriptions deducted from the officers' pay?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for. Mr. Montagu): The Government of India have certain proposals under consideration, and a decision should be reached shortly.

NATIONALITY LAW.

Sir W. DAVISON: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the serious disability suffered by married British subjects of British blood resident in Portugal and other foreign countries by reason of the fact that under British law their children, if born in a foreign country, are not entitled to British citizenship; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that the children of parents of British blood, wherever born, are entitled to British nationality unless the laws of the State in which their parents are temporarily domiciled require the child to assume the nationality of the State of its birth, pending naturalisation in another State?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to take this question, which deals with a matter well known to both him and me. The disability arises only if the father as well as the child has been born abroad. This is one of the points of nationality law on which it is intended to take the earliest opportunity of agreeing legislation with the self-governing Dominions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is very keenly felt indeed by the large British colony in Portugal, that the Portuguese Government raise no objection whatever to the children of British-born parents being recognised as British subjects, and that the only difficulty is on the part of the British Government; and does he not think it is very hard lines on the children of these British-born parents that they should be prevented from obtaining
British nationality, which the Portuguese Government do not object to?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question, only three times the length.

IMPERIAL CABINET.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now state definitely whether Friday will be allocated to the discussion on the agenda for the Imperial Conference; and whether the Conference itself will meet on Thursday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Friday will be allocated to the promised discussion. As regards the meeting of the Conference itself, I am sorry to say that it has become necessary to postpone it till next week, as the Prime Minister is forbidden by his medical advisers to resume his public work in London this week. The Dominion Prime Ministers already in this country and the representatives of India have been consulted and have given their consent to the postponement. They naturally attach great importance to the presence of the Prime Minister. We are informing the Prime Minister of Canada by wireless of the change. I am sure that he will attach equal importance to the Prime Minister's presence, and I hope that the alteration will not inconvenience him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to Friday, may I ask if the Government intend to put down a

Motion, or what form will the discussion take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain about the form, but it can either be taken on one of the Votes, or we will move the Adjournment of the House in order to give an opportunity of raising the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be taken as being one of the Supply days?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it is a Vote, it will be a Supply day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We do not want that.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Motion for the Estimates Committee will appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it precisely. I am not quite certain what at this moment is delaying it. I thought the matter was arranged.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Safeguarding of Industries Bill (Allocation of Time) be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 40.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Fell, Sir Arthur


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Forrest, Walter


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gardner, Ernest


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gee, Captain Robert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Barlow, Sir Montague
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Glyn, Major Ralph


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park


Barnston, Major Harry
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Betterton, Henry B.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greig, Colonel James William


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Dawes, James Arthur
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Harmsworth, Hon. EC. (Kent)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Haslam, Lewis


Butcher, Sir John George
Eyres-Monseil, Com. Bolton M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Seddon, J. A.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Manville, Edward
Simm, M. T.


Hinds, John
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, William Lane
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sugden, W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Murchison, C. K.
Taylor, J.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Jesson, C.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Neal, Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Jones, J T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waddington, R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Parker, James
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Waring, Major Walter


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lloyd, George Butler
Pratt, John William
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Purchase, H. G.
Wise, Frederick


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lorden, John William
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)



McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
McCurdy.


Magnus, Sir Philip




NOES.


Barrand, A. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Myers, Thomas


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Irving, Dan
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kennedy, Thomas
Royce, William Stapleton


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
MacVeagh, Jeremiah



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Mr. A. Williams and Mr. R.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Young.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

SELECTION.

GAS AND WATER BILLS, JOINT COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Gas and Water Bills: Lieut.-Colonel Bell; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. Samuel Roberts.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I beg to move:
That the Proceedings on the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned:

Table.


Proceedings on Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.







p.m.


First
…
…
Clause 1 and Clause 2 (1) to the end of paragraph (a)
…
7.0


The remainder of Clause 2 (1)
…
10.30


Second
…
…
The remainder of Clause 2
…
7.0


Clause 3
…
10.30


Third
…
…
Clauses 4, 5 and 6
…
7.0


Clause 7
…
10.30


Fourth
…
…
Clauses 8 and 9
…
7.0


Clauses 10 to 16
…
10.30


Fifth
…
…
New Clauses
…
7.0


Schedule, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
10.30

On the conclusion of the Committee stage the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

Orders of the Day — (2) REPORT STAGE.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings

Table.


Proceedings on Report Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.










p.m.


First
…
…
New Clauses and Part I. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
7.0


Part II. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
—


Second
…
…
Part II. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
7.0


Part III. and Schedule of the Bill, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion
10.30

Orders of the Day — (3) THIRD READING.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

Orders of the Day — (1) COMMITTEE STAGE.

Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purpose of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day: Provided that 2 and 4.30 p.m., respectively, shall be substituted for 7 and 10.30 p.m. as
respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be, and on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of Clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.

A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee: The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be forthwith put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the Motion.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, or that further consideration of the Bill or any Debate be now adjourned, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day or at any particular time being proceeded with on any other day or at any other time, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given
86
to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.
In rising to make this Motion, I desire to offer a few words of explanation to the House. The Motion will not, I think, have come as a surprise to the House, nor will Members, in whatever quarter they may sit, and whatever protest they may think it necessary to make, feel anything but a sense of relief that the Government is attempting to put some term to their sufferings. The justification for the Motion is of two kinds. It rests, first, upon general Parliamentary practice and precedent, and, secondly, upon the special circumstances of this particular Bill, and of the present Session of Parliament. I would like the House to consider for a moment the time which we have at our disposal if we are to avoid an Autumn Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why avoid it?"]—and how we should allocate the time for the Measures which are under discussion. Hon. Gentlemen, in confident expectation that I shall stand firm, challenge me to say why there should be no Autumn Session. They would be the first to be disappointed if there were an Autumn Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They know that we know so.

Mr. W. THORNE: Quite right.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is the kind of demonstration of unlimited zeal to which we are all accustomed in Opposition, but to which we devoutly pray the Government of the day will pay no attention. I do not rest solely upon that. I think that it is a matter of public policy to avoid an Autumn Session this year, if we can do so. Since I came into the House there has been a profound change in this matter, and one which I venture to say is not good for the House or for the legislative or administrative business of the country. The House has been overburdened, the Government and the Offices necessarily have been still more overburdened, and legislation could not be prepared with the care and attention
which was customary in more leisurely times. We can all choose our illustrations. I am stating a general principle which, I think, will not be denied by any Member of experience, and I am putting forward a proposition which, I believe, merits the serious attention of those who value the influence and authority of Parliament. May I make clear to the House the contrast between the recent practice and the old practice. I had the curiosity to examine, or to have examined, the number of years in which Autumn Sessions have been held during the 29 years for which I have been a Member of the House. Those 29 years are almost exactly divided into two by the end of the Parliament of 1905. Between 1892 and 1905 there were 14 Parliamentary years, and in only five of those 14 years were there Autumn Sessions. Between 1906 and 1920 there were 15 Parliamentary years, and in 13 out of those 15 years there were Autumn Sessions.

Lord R. CECIL: That includes the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must include the War if I am to measure the burden on Parliament. I think I see what is in my Noble Friend's mind. He is probing these matters to see whose head should be taken off. I am not distributing blame or offering criticism—

Lord R. CECIL: No, my right hon. Friend mistakes me. It is not his head that I want on this particular occasion, but I do not think that the comparison is fair if you are merely showing the tendency of Parliament to take the years of the War when we had to sit.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend's interruption would have carried greater weight if in those War Autumn Sessions we had done nothing but summon Parliament in order that it might keep its control over the Executive in very critical times, but he well knows that was far from being the case. I include those years, not for the purpose of saying that they are similar to the years before the War, or to the years subsequent to the War, but for the purpose of measuring the burden which has fallen upon Parliament and all concerned with the work of Parliament in recent years. Let me take the years immediately preceding the War, when the change had already taken place,
and of which, I think, he was as sharp a critic as any of his former colleagues who then occupied those benches in his company. In 1906, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911 there were Autumn Sessions. In 1907 and 1913 only was an Autumn Session avoided. That is taking the years before the War. What result does that have? In the first place, the Government of the day and the Offices are deprived of the autumn period during which in former days they applied themselves to bring into force the Acts already passed, preparing the legislation which they would submit in the succeeding Session, and generally to the close and careful-examination of the work of their Departments in all their branches. It is not only that Ministers and the Offices suffer. Permit me to say, if they suffer, that Parliament must suffer through their work in Parliament being less worthy.
Parliament itself, however, suffers. Members are tied to this House to an extent which renders it extremely difficult for them to keep in touch with their constituents in the country, and there never was a time when, either by reason, I will not say of the smallness of the attention given in the Press to Parliament—that would be misleading—but of the small amount of space devoted to our Debates and discussion, or of the magnitude, complexity, and novelty of many of the questions which are exercising the public mind, it was more important that Members should be, and that it should be made possible for them to be, in close touch with their constituents. Under these circumstances, I think, and His Majesty's Government think, that it really is of public importance, no less than of importance to the convenience of Members in the discharge of their duties, that we should avoid an Autumn Session if possible.
From the beginning of this week up till 12th August—let me hastily say, lest I give rise to misapprehension, that I do not anticipate that we shall be able to rise under any circumstances on 12th August—there are 45 Parliamentary days, 36 full days and nine Fridays. I have to make assumptions for the purpose, not of laying down a definite programme of business, but of giving the House a rough sketch of the demands upon our time. Supply, without allowing any additional days, would require seven days. To the Finance Bill I allot five days for the Committee, Report, and Third Read-
ing, to the Railways Bill four days for Report and Third Reading, the same to the Agriculture Bill for Second Reading, Report, and Third Reading, the same to the Unemployment Insurance Bill for the same three stages, eight days for the Safeguarding of Industries Bill as provided in this Resolution, two to the Consolidated Fund Bill, three to the Church of Scotland Bill—probably that is an unduly large number—and three to the Law of Property Bill which has come down from the House of Lords.

Mr. HOGGE: Three days for the Law of Property Bill, too?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have put down three days for each of them. As I say, I am not attempting to make out a programme now, but only to give some sort of idea of what is involved. Probably the last two items are given more time than the House will require for those particular measures. That would occupy 40 out of the 45 days. Beside that we have to consider a possible Measure on licensing—only possible if a large measure of agreement is reached as a result of the conference to which the Government are inviting Members—the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, to which great importance is attached, as the House knows, by a large section of the community, and especially by the organisations which are either wholly or particularly representative of women, a small Bill on Indian divorces, the consideration of other Bills from the House of Lords and of Amendments to important Government Measures, and any other Measures which it may be necessary to take. The House will see that we have not any more time than we require, and that, if we are to rise, say, by the end of the third week in August, we must husband the time that is at our disposal. Under these circumstances I have put down this Motion in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I do not understand that the Opposition intend to challenge the propriety of fixing a time limit to the Debate on that Measure.

Sir D. MACLEAN: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is a taxing Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have not put down an Amendment challenging the
propriety of fixing a time limit. Their Amendments are all in the direction of the extension of the time, but, since the right hon. Gentleman announces that they do challenge the propriety of fixing any limit at all, and since the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull seems to think that, while it might be proper to limit any other Bill, it would be improper to limit a taxing Bill, I must say a word or two on each point. I am really not reproaching my hon. Friends for not having put down an Amendment challenging the proposal; I am only sorry that I have misunderstood their intention. I thought, if they challenged the proposals, that they would put down an Amendment to leave out all the words after the word "that" and to insert a different proposition.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We can vote in the Lobby.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend need not make a grievance where no offence was intended. I thought that I found myself in agreement with him on principle, differing only on the point of time. He tells me that is not so. May I tell him why I was led into that misapprehension? It was from a careful study of the utterances of my great predecessor with his almost unrivalled experience, the late Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley was an adept in that art in which I am to-day appearing for the first time as a humble neophyte. He was an adept in the art of persuading the House of Commons that if they wanted to do their business properly they must apply a time limit to the various stages of all kinds of measures. That had been done by others before him and has been done by others since.

Mr. HOGGE: Always opposed by you.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And always opposed by the party in opposition. Except in the case of the Leader of the present Liberal Opposition, it has always been done with an expression of regret, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley gloried in the proposal which he made, and he announced that he had come to the conclusion that such time-fixing arrangements on all important Bills must be a part of our permanent machinery. That was why I was errone-
ously led to believe that his followers did not challenge the proposal which I have put down. Let me remind the House what the right hon. Gentleman said. This was in October, 1911, on the National Insurance Bill.

Dr. MURRAY: That was before the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Time has not become less valuable since the War, and I therefore do not see the point of that observation. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I have slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating a time table as part of our established procedure. This does not apply to one party more than another. … I assume the absence of anything in the nature of organised, intentional, or even casual Parliamentary obstruction. I assume all these things, and I venture to say that having regard to the commitments of this Parliament, the multitudinous nature of its duties, the diversities of interests with which it has to deal, the enormous and ever-increasing burden of the labours it has to perform, legislation on a large scale in regard to grave and complicated questions is impossible unless you have got some from of time table and some allocation of time. I do not believe if that comes to be recognised as a normal part of our Parliamentary procedure it would fetter or manacle free and adequate discussion.

Mr. LAMBERT: And the right hon. Gentleman's constituency rejected him at the election.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman went on to say
I, therefore, do not in the least shrink from any taunt or retort that will be made that we are here creating a precedent for the future. I believe it is a precedent that is necessary and that its operation will prove to be beneficent—
I am sorry, very sorry, that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to support these observations. I know the cause of his absence, and I regret it. How useful his presence would have been?
and that without it you cannot carry out the duties which this House is required by the country and the interests of the Empire to discharge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1911, Cols. 120 and 121, Vol. 30.] I think that is sufficient as a justification for the principle of the Measure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That should not apply to a Measure of taxation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very young Member of the House. Had he been a little older Member he would have been here to support, and I have little doubt would have supported, his leader in applying the same measure to the Finance Bill of 1914. On this, the second occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, whose absence I infinitely regret, said:
Speaking quite seriously, without going into remote or hypothetical considerations, I do not think that anybody who seriously takes into view all the possibilities of our present procedure will deny, with regard to Finance Bills and others, that it has become necessary that the Government of the day should fix some definite allocation of time for their various stages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1914; col. 932, Vol. 64.]
We have taken to heart the lesson taught us by my right hon. Friend and we propose such allocation to this Bill. It may be objected that we should wait until we have got to the Committee stage before putting forward our Resolution. That has always been done, and I venture to say that it has never worked well for anything. It results in a waste of a great deal of time, and then in the compression of all that remains into such time as the Government or the House can afford. If you once recognise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley did, that in regard to a highly-contentious and important Measure, or even a complicated and important Measure, not highly contentious, that a time-table is necessary, it follows that it is an advantage to everyone that that time-table should be produced at the earliest moment possible so that the time which is allotted may be spent to the best advantage.
I would ask the House to remember that we have already spent six days over the Bill, three in detailed consideration of the Resolutions in Committee, one in considering the Resolutions on Report, and two days on the Second Reading of the Bill. We now propose to allocate eight further Parliamentary days, and in framing the time table we have sought to the best of our ability to see that the really outstanding features of the Bill come fully under discussion; in other words, we have endeavoured to fix the different compartments of the Bill in such a way that those points of the Bill that we believe hon. Members will most wish to challenge may be reached at an early time in the com-
partment in which they fall. I hope I have said all that the House expects me to say. I do not at this stage think it necessary that I should add more. I do not wish to adopt at the present in its fullness the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley that all complicated Bills, the Finance Bill or others, in future may be made subject to the rules allocating the time; but I submit, having regard to the time we have already given to this Bill, to the character of the discussion which it has provoked, and the work which lies before us this Session, it is necessary that we should take this step on this occasion and in respect to this Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House based his argument for the support of this Motion on two grounds. First of all, he said it had been done before and, therefore, that was a very good reason for doing it again. In the second place, he urged that whatever happens we must not have an Autumn Session. In regard to the first point, on which the right hon. Gentleman read the statement made by my right hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Paisley, the Leader of the House (Mr. Chamberlain) entirely forgets—I suggest to him—what has happened in this Parliament. The very first thing we undertook after the reading of the King's Speech was the reform of the procedure of the House. When my right hon. Friend made the statement to which reference has been made by the Leader of the House he was not in the position at all of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The condition of affairs was that which obtained before the reform of the procedure of the House. What were those reforms—or alterations—for some of them were mere alterations, and not reforms. Some, I admit, were reforms. Instead of the Floor of this House being congested with big Bills, so to speak, struggling for precedence here, we established the system of Grand Committees. There has been another very striking reform, and that was giving the Chairman of Ways and Means, and his Deputy a most drastic power of control over our Debates. There was one significant exception, and that was the question of finance. The House when it started its new career expressly and definitely kept out of the gambit of Grand Committee such a Bill as the one we are now considering. The position
which the Leader of the House took up on that occasion has been substantially minimised by the new rules of procedure. We are now dealing with an entirely different state of things, and only those who have been in opposition know how drastic such powers can be.
The other point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there must not be an Autumn Session. Personally I shall be very glad if there is no Autumn Session this year. The House is very tired and it has been overworked. But if our public duties necessitate it, as I think they do in regard to this Bill, then we ought to have an Autumn Session, but if we can avoid an Autumn Session I am certainly all in favour of it. I do not know whether the Leader of the House was present during the Debate which took place last November in which the former Leader of the House and I took part. We then discussed the question of finance and the time given for finance. I said then in the new Session of Parliament what the Government ought to do and what I am certain the House of Commons would back them in doing would be to introduce only legislative measures of the most vital importance and concentrate the whole of our Parliamentary time on efforts to secure economy. I got a very favourable reception as far as the then Leader of the House was concerned in regard to that proposition, and he agreed that we were crowding the Statute Book with legislation which might not be vitally necessary, that there was an urgent and overwhelming need for a discussion of finance, and he promised in the coming Session to introduce as few highly controversial measures as possible.
Let me now take up the question of the time which the Government are now proposing for this highly controversial Measure. What was said in November last with regard to economy is five hundred fold more important now than it was then. The Government might have jettisoned several Bills, for example the German Reparation Bill. What is the good of that Measure? By common consent no more ridiculous Measure was ever put upon the Statute Book. Then there is the Agriculture Bill. That Measure has already gone by the board. We are now strewn with the wreckage of Measures which experience has demonstratd were quite unnecessary. If the Government thought the Bill now before us was the great Measure of the
Session, they should have started upon it long ago. The House met in the second or third week in February, and time after time the Leader of the House and the President of the Board of Trade were asked when this Measure was coming in. On this question, however, the Government drifted on. I suggest to the Leader of the House that instead of coming to us and saying that under the great pressure of Parliamentary time he is reluctantly compelled to introduce this Guillotine Motion, he should have said: "I very much regret that I have had to come to the conclusion that the best thing the Government can do is to drop this Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to save an Autumn Session, that is the way to do it. That is the way to clear the business and get rid of another Measure of the same class as those which have already been demonstrated to be useless, vexatious, and unnecessary.
I wish to say a word or two now about the proposals of the Government and the non-necessity for the Measure to which we are now asked to apply this Motion. How do the Government stand with regard to their powers? I have already referred to the drastic powers in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but the Government have an unexampled majority, and they need not worry about securing a majority. The Division bells have only to ring, and in troop the supporters of the Government by the hundred to vote for any such Measure as this that will curtail Debate and enable hon. Members to get home before 11 o'clock. They have the drastic powers of the Chair, and they have overwhelming and powerful majorities. With what are we faced? There is an Opposition which I claim, for its size, has performed as useful a function as any Opposition ever did in. this House, but, after all, numbers are a very severe handicap. The hon. Members belonging to both parties who sit on these benches are in a very difficult position, and it is difficult for them to maintain the necessary Debate in order to criticise properly the proposals of the Government. The Government have immense reserves of all kinds at their hand, and yet in these circumstances they come forward and propose one of the most drastic Measures ever put forward by a Government with regard to a time table on an important Measure.
What sort of a Bill is this? I will observe the rule of the House and not discuss the Bill itself, but I think I may be permitted to make some reference to the kind of Bill for which the Government are taking this drastic step. It is a Bill of a nature which requires most careful and, indeed, meticulous consideration. I shall leave hon. Members who will follow me, and who will move Amendments, to discuss this matter in more detail, and I will simply draw attention to one proposal, and that is with regard to the Schedule. How much time are we giving to the Schedule? Only three hours. The Schedule is really the Bill, for that is where the taxes are dealt with and where the specific levies are made, and yet the Leader of the House, knowing that, contemptuously suggests that all that can be got through in a little over three hours. That shows the spirit in which this question is being treated, and it is a spirit of contempt for the House of Commons. It is trifling with our power and rights and duties, especially in regard to a Finance Bill. This is really a taxing Measure, and why should our proceedings in regard to it be interrupted by a Motion of this sort?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It follows the precedent of the Finance Bill of 1914.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not care a rap for what happened in 1914 I am reminding the right hon. Gentleman what happened in 1919. These solemn stately steps which centuries of experience have laid down as the proper method and means whereby to deal with a Finance Bill have been ruthlessly cut short by the proposal of the Government. Of course, the reason is known to all of us. It is of immense importance to the citizen who finds the money for the support of the State that there should be the most careful scrutiny of every proposal of every Government or any Executive that has charge of the affairs of the country. On the Schedule alone you have a long list, and nobody can tell the incidence of the taxes and tariffs in the Schedule. Very often by discussion you can find out some of the dangers and remove disadvantages, but the right hon. Gentleman practically says: "Not at all; in Committee we shall have three hours of discussion, and that will be sufficient." You may discuss about three of them in that time, and all the rest will have to go through without any
discussion. There never was a more high-handed action on the part of any Government in recent times with regard to a Finance Bill than this. The time may come when the Leader of the House will be on this side and the Government may take up the precedents being set to-day, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will live to regret the steps they are asking the House to take in regard to a Finance Bill, This is a most serious financial matter, and the only reason my right hon. Friend can suggest for this course is that we must not have an Autumn Session. By their own default the Government are in the position in which they find themselves to-day. We have not interfered with them.
There has been little or no obstruction of business, either this Session or last Session. There never has been in any Parliament of modern times less obstruction to the will of the majority than there has been in this Parliament. Complaint is very fairly made of the Government having brought forward this proposal without having tried first to see what progress could be made. It is a very strong ground of complaint. There has been no serious attempt to do that, and they have come down without first allowing a day or two to pass in order to see what progress was made in Committee. They have assumed what will be the action of the Opposition, small in numbers, limited in physical power, and faced by a majority such as we know, is at the back of the Government—a Government which has behind it the power of the Chair and has only to ask for that power to be exercised on its behalf—with all these facts before them they make this proposal, never giving us a chance to see how we can get on. As one who has taken a pretty active part in nearly all the Debates of this Parliament, I never remember any really serious appeal made by the Leader of the House to the Opposition which has been unfairly rejected. Whenever any serious appeal has been made to us it has always been substantially acceded to. We may have suggested that the House should sit a bit later or a day or two longer, but we have not gone beyond that. The people of this country are watching this House much more closely than many Members think. I do not believe they are apathetic or indifferent to the proceedings of this House, and while I am sure they
will be impatient, and rightly so, of vexatious and frivolous discussion, at the same time they are very jealous of any interference with the rights and duties of the House, especially in connection with public finance. The right hon. Gentleman has struck a blow at the usefulness and power of the House and its restraining influence—a power which no one in this House of Commons reveres more than I do.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) was a little wrong in his historical account of the alterations of the method by which Bills are automatically sent to Standing Committees. That alteration was instituted by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, I believe in the year 1906 or in 1907, and all the present Government did was to create six Standing Committees instead of four. But they also gave Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees the power to "kangaroo" without any special Resolution having been passed, and they enabled Money Resolutions to be discussed after 11 o'clock at night. That is all this Government have done, and I repeat that the system of Grand Committees was instituted by Sir Henry. Campbell-Bannerman. I have never voted for a guillotine Resolution. I shall not vote for this one. Whether I shall vote against it is another matter. I agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles that there has been no obstruction on the part of the Opposition during this Parliament. I do not pretend to be an authority on obstruction, but I have sometimes thought that what the Opposition wanted was a little more vitality and a little more obstruction. I do not think they can be accused of obstructing in any patent way. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that Autumn Sessions are bad. I do not want to see one, but I do not agree with him in the means by which he is going to avoid it. I see no reason why we should pass the Church of Scotland Bill this Session. It would be a very excellent thing to do next Session. Then it is proposed to deal with the Law of Property. I am always very much afraid when new Bills relating to property are brought in, especially when they run into 140 Clauses. I am afraid of the result. I am inclined to think it would be better to leave the whole thing alone. Property has had a
rather bad time lately, and if it is to be dealt with by a Bill of 140 Clauses a whole Session should be given to the consideration of it. I think there is some force in the objection which has been raised that this Resolution has been brought forward before the Committee stage has been entered upon. Over and over again when I was on the opposite side of the House, and when similar proposals were made, I heard my Leader declare that the proposal was not fair.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He was in Opposition.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, and when I was in Opposition, when the right hon. Member for Paisley brought in a Resolution of this sort I said he was doing a bad thing. My opinion is not changed because I now happen to be on the other side of the House. Under these circumstances I am not sure that I shall not take the opportunity of enjoying a little well-earned rest this evening.

5.0. P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: I accept the view that there are occasions on which a Motion of this kind would be justifiable. It would be justifiable if the Opposition insisted on deliberately wasting the time of the House by using its numbers and by indulging in unduly long speeches, or by adopting other devices not unkown in recent Parliaments. It might be justifiable too in order to secure the passing of a very important Measure which the country was demanding and which it approved, but which apparently could not be got through in reasonable time. I can imagine in such a case the Government being fully justified in resorting to such a plan as the one now proposed. But as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has pointed out, the Opposition cannot be charged with having misused any of its resources, such as they are, or with having failed to meet reasonable requests put forward by the Government in regard to the general conduct of business. The Government has not been able to show that the country has manifested enthusiastic approval of the Bill which is the subject of this present proposal. The Bill itself was mentioned in the course of a general controversy, but of national urgency or demand there is no evidence whatever, neither has it been shown that national approval has been signified in
regard to this proposal. I endorse the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that the fitting thing to do, faced as we are with a desire not to have an Autumn Session, is to drop this Bill rather than bring forward as an argument relating to Autumn Sessions a reference to a Measure of this kind. It is a Bill which can be dropped without loss, and that indeed would be a self-respecting course for the Government to adopt.
The Opposition is entitled to complain of the failure of the Government to arrange its programme during the Session on something like reasonable lines to meet national needs. The Session has not been without surprises. Last week was full of them. A policy settled in one Session is reversed in the next, and in some instances the settlement and the reversal both take place in the same Session. This is not properly arranging our business agenda. No authority is vested in a Government merely by virtue of its numbers. It is not justified in relying merely on its mechanical majority. It does not get moral authority or national approval or the assent of Parliament merely by the procedure of relying on its large majority. We have recently had a number of very sudden and immature decisions which have greatly upset our calculation, and these reversals, in our judgment, are no justification for this further change in our Parliamentary agenda. The procedure of this House within the last year, as a fact, was altered in order that this very extreme step should be avoided. The automatic passing of Bills to Committees upstairs and the widening of the powers now vested in the Chairman on matters of selection clearly were designed to avoid the very procedure which the right hon. Gentleman now asks this House to sanction. Everyone admits that of all Parliamentary methods of conducting business this is the worst, and it can only be justified in extreme cases. No case can be made out for it in regard to what has happened this Session. We have wasted time on a number of occasions on industrial measures during the past six or seven weeks, and two or three times the House has been called upon to discuss proclamations and the raising of armies, and other matters in relation to the conduct of disputes which, however, have been peacefully carried through by the enormous numbers of men engaged in
them. That is an outstanding instance of the failure of the Government to appreciate the national temper and to do justice to those who are as anxious to preserve the law as the Government is to enforce it.
I do not know whether it is intended by the Government to listen to the appeals which are being addressed to it, and especially to the proposal on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Peebles, to double the amount of time which the Government propose should be allotted to the consideration of the Bill. In principle I would not accept that action as an absolute justification for the conduct of the Government, but certainly it would go far if it would not absolutely meet the needs of the situation. This is clearly the most controversial Bill of the Session, the Bill which has received the least degree of national sanction, and, perhaps, the Bill which has received the least amount of half-hearted support which the majority of the Government can give to any Measure brought forward by its responsible heads. Members have gone into the Lobbies and have recorded their votes in favour of it, but, judging from all the signs, there seems to be very little whole-hearted approval of the general terms of the Measure itself. It is in the Committee stage that we must have opportunity fully to examine its terms, and I do not think that any Measure has been introduced in recent years in the case of which minute and full consideration of the details has been more essential. There are very great interests affected—commercial and trading and working-class interests—by the proposals of this Bill, and to force the Bill through its Committee stage without full opportunity adequately to examine every proposal, would properly evoke very great resentment from those who may be subject to its provisions, when later on it becomes law. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to meet the substance of the Amendment to which I have referred, appealing for a large increase in the amount of time to be given.
I should like now to say a word on the question of an Autumn Session. I dissent from the view that it is inadvisable to do Parliamentary work during the course of an autumn. I have felt, like any other
Member of the House, the physical strain of year by year giving uninterrupted attention to Parliamentary and public duties; but there is a great deal of difference between having to work all the year round and working for only half the year. An adjournment from, say, the middle of August to the middle of February, is surely too long, and I would seriously put to my right hon. Friend the view that this is a year in which we should not think of light-heartedly rising from our duties in the middle of August and not considering their resumption until some time next year. Unless we are extremely fortunate, and unless very many serious economic and industrial difficulties are overcome, there will be need for Parliamentary action, there will be need for an outlet for opinion, and there will be need for Parliamentary decisions during that long period between August and February. I am mindful of the heavy burden that is placed upon the heads of State Departments, and upon those who are permanently responsible for the general working of the great State and Parliamentary machine. I am in the fullest sympathy with them, and have some very slight knowledge of the manner in which they are overburdened. But I am putting the view that there is a great deal of difference between doing no Parliamentary work for a period of some five or six months, and at least doing some work during a part of that period. I suggest, without pretending to speak for everyone on this side of the House—because the matter has not really been considered, and it is only the chief argument of the Leader of the House that has prompted me to express this view—that we ought not now to accept as a settled doctrine the conclusion that it is not desirable to have Autumn Sessions, and that they are only to be regarded as the exception and not as a permanent part of our whole Parliamentary system. A reasonable interval is one thing, but these extremes of long periods of no Parliamentary work at all ought not to be accepted as something which is absolutely settled.
The Opposition has just cause to press its appeal upon the Leader of the House not to show himself immovable with respect to the list which is now before the House. Perhaps, in regard to this particular measure, if the Opposition is
reasonably met, the feeling which would be engendered by the course proposed could be very greatly diminished, if not altogether dispersed. Five days for the full consideration of the details of a Measure of this kind is absolutely too short a time in which to do justice to the Measure itself, and, considering that there are non-party interests—trade, commercial and industrial—which will be so deeply affected by the terms of this Bill when it becomes law, I hope that the Leader of the House will not err on the side of giving insufficient time for the full consideration of a Measure which is so highly controversial as this.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Lord Privy Seal advanced two main arguments in favour of this Motion. The first was the desire of the Government, which is shared in all parties, to avoid an Autumn Session. I will not amplify the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles on that point, except to say, that of the 36 Parliamentary days which, as the Lord Privy Seal indicated, would be available, eight, or practically 25 per cent., will be occupied by legislation revoking recent legislation passed by the Government. In view of that large percentage of time so occupied, I hope the Government may be induced to give further time to this very important Bill. The Lord Privy Seal came down this afternoon fortified with two declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. The first consisted of certain words uttered in this House in 1911 with regard to the National Insurance Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, however, there was no Division on the Second Reading of that Bill, and to apply the simile of a Bill in the case of which the House did not divide on Second Reading to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, is, I think, hardly in keeping with the position now. The other reference was in connection with the Finance Bill of 1913, but those hon. Members who were in the House at that time will agree with me that the provisions of that Bill differed profoundly from the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. The comparison on those two points, therefore, falls to the ground.
I do not think that the Lord Privy Seal suggested that there had been
organised opposition. An analysis of the Members who took part in the Debate on the Second Reading reveals the fact that on the second day 10 Members were called upon who spoke against the Bill and 9 who spoke for it, while on the first day also there were 10 Members who spoke against the Bill and 9 who spoke for it; and I think I am justified in submitting these figures as showing that there has been no organised opposition to the Bill from any quarter of the House. The characteristic of the Second Reading stage was the number of hon. Members from Scotland who took part in the Debate against the Bill. Of 20 Members who spoke against the Bill, as many as 8 represented Scottish constituencies. Scotland is keenly interested in this Bill. Scotland thinks that her trade and industry may suffer, and hon. Members who come to this House with that logic which I am told distinguishes my fellow countrymen are anxious that the provisions of this Bill should come under criticism free and unfettered by any guillotine Resolution or by any expedient which the Government may adopt to pass this Measure into law. It might be said that the Government, with its very large majority, can force this Bill through the House of Commons, but might I just remind the President of the Board of Trade that at the recent bye-election at Heywood all of the three candidates who stood were opposed to the Bill. If there were a big wave of popular sentiment in favour of the Bill outside, I could understand the Government pressing it through regardless of opposition, but, in view of the strong feeling which is gradually being engendered throughout the country against the provisions of this Bill, I think the Government would be well advised to allow it free and unfettered discussion.
There is one further argument which I am anxious to submit to the President of the Board of Trade. It has been said that there are three ways of governing people—by priests, by bullets, or by open discussion. The Government have thought out a further method of passing legislation through this House by the aid of the guillotine Resolutions, which legislation is to be enacted by a Department of the Board of Trade. This matter raises, not so much a party question, as the question whether the House of Commons, which has the sovereign powers, is to be per-
mitted to levy taxes on the subjects of this Realm—whether this House, by free and open Debate, is to decide according to its own judgment whether the subjects of the Realm are to be taxed, the method of taxation, and the burden of taxation. That, in the past, has never yet, except in the case of the 1913 Bill, been discussed under a guillotine Resolution, and I therefore suggest that the Government view of the feeling outside against this Bill, and of its far-reaching provisions, which run contrary to all our fiscal system, would be well advised to withdraw their Resolution and permit the Bill to be discussed in full and open Debate in this House.

Lord R. CECIL: I agree with a great deal that has been said in criticism of the Bill to which this Motion is to be applied. I think that the Bill is partly futile and partly pernicious. But I do not base the observations which I am going to make to the House upon my opinion of the Bill. My right hon. Friend, in proposing this Motion, went through the time-honoured Parliamentary practice of quoting what had been said by Leaders of the present Opposition in times past when they were Ministers. I do not know that that particular kind of argument has any great weight with anybody. It has not much weight in this House, and it has absolutely none outside. I think it unfortunate that my right hon. Friend—for whom, if I may say so, I have a great personal admiration—treated it as a matter of the slightest possible importance that he was himself proposing a Measure which he had constantly denounced when he was in Opposition. That is unfortunate particularly in the case of my right hon. Friend, because his personal character and position is one of the assets of the country. I am not in any difficulty. I am like my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). I am always always opposed to the guillotine. I have never voted for it, and I have always voted against it. While I was a Member of the Government no guillotine was proposed. That has nothing to do with the fact that I was a Member of it, but because it was during the War, and no opportunity arose when the guillotine was even considered, but as a matter of fact I have always opposed it. For what the argument of inconsistency is worth in such cases it does not apply to myself.
I have been opposed to it because I honestly think it a very bad plan for the House of Commons. Debate under Guillotine is a most unsatisfactory form of Debate. I have often said so. So has the Lord Privy Seal, and I am sure he thought so when he said so, and everyone who has been through Debates under the Guillotine will, I am sure, agree with me that Debate under Guillotine is a most unsatisfactory Debate. It makes the Government extremely perfunctory in their dealing with Amendments. They are not afraid of anything which may happen. They know quite well that in a Parliament like this there is not the slightest danger of their being beaten in the Division Lobby. No one imagines that there is. The only thing they are afraid of is acting in so unreasonable a way as to make the House intractable and therefore involving great delay and difficulty. But once having got the Guillotine they do not care a bit about that. They may be as unreasonable and tyrannical as they like. Their personal character will no doubt be a great obstacle, but once having got over that obstacle there is nothing in the procedure of the House to stop them. If a Minister under the Guillotine makes a most provocative and insulting speech to the Opposition it makes no difference at all. He gets his Clause or his Bill just the same. The whole work of Opposition is absolutely destroyed in such a House as this, where there is a large majority on one side and a small minority on the other. The Guillotine is bad. It encourages a practice which has already gone much too far, namely, that of making speeches which are not really directed to alter opinion in the House, but are entirely for consumption out of doors. In other words, you destroy the House as a deliberative assembly the moment you pass the Guillotine. The President of the Board of Trade and the Under-Secretary for the Home Department are the only Ministers who are present, but they, who have worked under it, know perfectly that what I am saying is true. They know that the Guillotine is destructive of debate, and they know that it destroys the House as a deliberative assembly, and yet they are proposing it in this particular case.
In this House there is a very small minority. I do not know what the number of the Opposition may amount to, but it is under a hundred. That is
much the smallest minority that has ever existed, so far as we know. I am not quite sure whether the first Reform Bill—[Interruption.] That was after the Opposition had split up. At one time he had a much larger Opposition than that. Certainly, since the Reform Parliament this is the smallest Opposition there has ever been. Therefore, in my judgment, they are entitled to greater consideration. If parties are nearly equal you may be quite sure the Government will not do anything unreasonable or improper or tyrannical, because they will suffer the great danger of defeat, whereas there is no danger of defeat in this House in a normal case. The only thing the Opposition has to rely upon is the greater freedom of debate and the protection of the rules of the House, as administered by the Chair. For these reasons, I am altogether against the Guillotine as a regular part of our proceedings, or, indeed, in practically all cases in this House. I admit that all-night sittings are, in my judgment, worse. I have always said it is the worst form of dealing with Parliamentary business to sit up all night so as by physical exhaustion to compel legislation. But, with that exception, I think the Guillotine is the worst system that has yet been adopted. I do not deny the evil of obstruction. I have indulged in obstruction in my day—I do not want to pretend to be more sinless than my neighbour—but I do not think it is a good thing. It is the resource of an Opposition when they find a Government is absolutely unreasonable and intractable, and it ought to be confined to that case. It ought to be confined to those cases where everyone sees that the Government is wrong and that the only way is to secure delay so that they may become amenable to opinion out of doors. But ordinary obstruction is very objectionable. My real objection to all these things is not only that I think them unfair to this or that section of the House, but because I am sure they do a great injury to the House outside.
I am sure that obstruction, all-night sittings, and the Guillotine are bad for the reputation of the House of Commons. I feel that very strongly, and I also feel very strongly, as I believe the Government do, that we cannot afford to injure the reputation of the House of Commons in the country at this time. The situa-
tion outside is much too serious. I never understand the policy of this Government. They say the most admirable things to the effect that they desire to promote the reputation and prestige of the House of Commons in every way, and then they come down with a Motion of this kind, which can do nothing but diminish its reputation and prestige. Have the Government tried every other possible way of obtaining a reasonable discussion of their Measures and the passage of this particular Measure,? Have they tried the possibility of an agreement? I am not speaking for the Opposition—I am not in a position to do so—but I ask the Government if they have tried it. In the Home Rule Bill, a year ago, the Guillotine was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law). Considerable protest was raised from the benches behind him, and then he reconsidered it, and said if he could receive some kind of undertaking from the Opposition that they would allow the Bill to go through without undue obstruction or opposition he would not insist on the Guillotine. An agreement was arrived at, and it was carried out absolutely. There was no suggestion of anything to the contrary. The Bill was passed and we avoided the Guillotine. I think this is a most disastrous step on the part of the Government. I honestly think this is the end. of the old system absolutely and for ever. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to quote what was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in times past. He can quote scores of passages, just as I have no doubt I could quote scores of passages in which he had said the contrary. That is not the point. Let us look at the reality. Before the War, undoubtedly, the Guillotine had become almost a fixed part of the procedure of the House of Commons. I remember a speech opposing a particular Measure of Guillotine in which the right hon. Gentleman said that if it passed it became a necessity for either side of the House, whenever it was in power, to impose the Guillotine. Then came the interval of four or five years during the War when there was a complete change in the House of Commons in many respects. There were great changes in personnel. The Guillotine was dropped absolutely. There was no need of it during the War. It was dropped until 1920. Then came the pro-
posal to Guillotine the Home Rule Bill, and after discussion my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow agreed to drop it and rely on agreement with the Opposition.
I hoped we should really have a chance of getting back to something like the old traditions of the House of Commons where the Government of the day relied not on this or that hard and fast rule, but on the general sense of the House as to what was reasonable opposition and what was unreasonable opposition, and with that force behind them they were able in the old days to carry through their legislation without any serious difficulties. I still think there is just a chance that we might get back to the old system and rely on the rules of the House of Commons for the work that is urgently necessary for the good government of the country. If no agreement is possible, I should much prefer to face an Autumn Session. I would prefer anything rather than fetter ourselves again with this system of Guillotine round necks. My own belief is that whether the Government desire it or not there will be an Autumn Session. Public needs will require it, and they will not avoid it by the Guillotine or anything, because they will be compelled by the urgency of public events to call Parliament together in the autumn, whether they like it or not. But let us try everything rather than go back to the guillotine. Let the Government try first whether they cannot get an agreement. If they cannot do that, I implore them to reconsider even the question of an Autumn Session. If they will not do that, if they insist on forcing this Guillotine through, and of course they can do it without the least difficulty, it will really mean absolutely and for ever the destruction of the old system. We have a chance of restoring it now. It is just possible. Everything should be tried before we abandon it. If you go on with this it really means its destruction. No one will think of avoiding the Guillotine in the future. This will be a definite announcement to this House and to the world that it means to carry on business under the guillotine. It will be taken as the final decision of this House for all time to come. Once again it will be the party dominated by what used to be the Conservative party which will be destroying one of the great institutions of this
country. I deeply regret the decision of the Government, and I shall vote against this Motion in every way.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Many hon Members will be inclined to agree that those of us who only entered this House in December, 1918, are in a position of some advantage in considering a Motion of this kind. We have no past that can be dug up in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have never been in a position of power and responsibility, and we have never made any suggestion of this kind. Therefore we can come to the consideration of the question mainly from the point of view of the effect which it will have upon the country and the political activities outside, in the light of the conditions through which the country is now passing. What would impel many of us to oppose this guillotine Resolution? I say sincerely and frankly to the Government that I think the representative principle in this country is in considerable danger. It is being attacked by a very large and increasing number of people on the ground that, after they have subscribed to the representative principle and have elected this House of Commons, they are denied that free discussion and that full investigation of public issues which they thought they had earned. That is well worthy of consideration in connection with this Motion. The Government must be well aware of the fact that many of us in connection with Labour issues are doing our best to defend what has been called the constitutional method. We are doing that against very considerable opposition. We always say that, argue as we may, in Great Britain we cannot get rid of the representative principle. I do not think that any hon. Member would argue that even in a small country like ours direct democracy is possible. If that is so, we must give the representative principle a chance of being practised, and see that there is absolute fair play and equality in the House of Commons. That is the foundation of our opposition to this Motion.
Even if we had not that cause for opposition to this proposal we should still be compelled to ask whether in the circumstances that confront the House today this proposal is really necessary. I invite any hon. Member to look at the programme of business which was sketched by the Leader of the House. It cannot be disputed that far too much
time has been given to certain Bills which, in practice, will probably occupy nothing like the time that has been allocated to them. Take one Measure with which some of us on this side are connected. I refer to the Scottish Church Bill, for which three days are allocated by the Government. I do not dispute that we could easily discuss theology for three days, or for many more days, but there are only seven or eight Scottish Members who are offering opposition to this Bill, and probably they would agree that anything resembling three days would not be required for the full statement of their case. Probably in connection with other Bills there is room for a good deal of economy in time. Therefore there should be more time available for the discussion of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
I presume that the action of the Government has been dictated by the fact that there are very large numbers of Amendments on the Order Paper. I have no right to speak for my hon. Friends who hold Independent Liberal views, but I think it would be admitted that many of the Amendments belong to what I call types, and it should be possible if we get a fair and just discussion on a type of Amendment that we need not devote a great deal of time to other Amendments which belong to one category. That is a perfectly practical suggestion, and I hope that if hon. Members on this side are prepared to take that view, and to behave in reason, as I think they are all prepared to do, we should probably be able to arrive at an agreement without the introduction of the guillotine method. I make that definite proposal to the Government for this reason, that I think they are entitled, and I am speaking mainly from the point of view of Labour Members, to rely upon the inevitable exhaustion which must overtake us in a diminished Opposition. Our numbers are very small, and probably during the time this Bill is under discussion they will be even smaller, owing to the industrial crisis. I am satisfied that if the Government give the eight days which they have already conceded, or probably very little more, they will find that the necessity for the guillotine will have disappeared.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope the Government will try to see if they cannot
come to some deal with the Liberal Opposition—because I gather that it is the Liberal Opposition that is the cause of the Guillotine Motion, and that Labour Members do not take quite the same view—in order to get us out of this Resolution. This Resolution will create a precedent. No doubt it is a most dangerous precedent. The real villain is the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). He created the Guillotine in this form, and rubbed it in, and used it on every possible occasion, and then fell in love with it, and used it on its merits. He ought to be here this afternoon and in the pillory for the way in which he destroyed the Debate in the House of Commons by creating this elaborate form of Guillotine, which took Mr. Speaker ten minutes to read. He closed the avenues of free discussion, and handed down to posterity in this House this dreadful form of Debate. Once you have this Guillotine in practice, further Debate on the Bill is futile. I do hope that if the Government are going to stick to their Guillotine Motion, which I profoundly regret, they will not listen to the Opposition to give more days for the Committee stage, but that they will reduce the number of days given to the Committee stage, because it really is futile. I think that five days of Parliamentary time on the Committee stage is absolutely wasted under Guillotine conditions. You never get an important point fully discussed. When there is a Guillotine you never get any reality in Debate. We have discussed this particular Bill up hill and down dale on the Financial Resolutions, and to waste five days on the Committee stage gives to the Bill an importance which the Bill on its merits does not deserve, and it has the effect of restoring the Guillotine as part of our Parliamentary practice.
I have supported this Bill. I do not think it is very important one way or the other. I think a good deal of it may be repealed by a subsequent Bill, and a good deal of it will never be operative. There is this merit of an all-night Sitting over the Guillotine, despite what was said by the Noble Lord, that the Measures passed in all-night Sittings during the last Session have required an amending Bill this year or a repeal. The Agriculture Act, the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Housing Bill, and the Insurance Amendment Act, these were dealt with in all-night Sittings. One of
those all-night Sittings did give us a new Minister of Health, for which we are glad. That is an indirect benefit of an all-night Sitting. An all-night Sitting usually has the effect which we want in regard to these unnecessary Measures, namely, either an amendment or repeal. I hope that some attempt will be made to prevent this dangerous Guillotine precedent being further tried in our procedure. By attempting to arrange with the small political opposition to the Bill the Government might be able to prevent something which is very undesirable. I think the Opposition on this Bill are shouting about something that is not going to hurt anybody. It seems to me to be very largely a manufactured opposition to a Bill which is not going to do anything very serious.
I hope we shall be able to avoid the disgrace of a return to the wicked principles of debate introduced by the right hon. Member for Paisley. The right hon. Member for Paisley will go down to eternal infamy for the Guillotine, and I regret that the Leader of the House thought it necessary to quote from his iniquitous speeches this afternoon. He quoted when he ought to have burned with indignation at repeating the kind of thing which he did repeat. We all remember the Welsh Church Act, the Home Rule Act, and the way the thing was done, the way in which the right hon. Member for Paisley destroyed the House of Commons and destroyed debate. That was one of the main causes of the Wee Free rout at the last election. The way they conducted legislation and the Guillotine was the main cause of the destruction of the Liberal party. The way they forced things like the Welsh Church Act down people's throats, the way they destroyed debate in this House, wickedly and wilfully, is notorious. If we are going to follow their example, and are not going to have free debate, and are going to act in the same way that the Liberal party acted when they were depending upon the Irish vote and were forcing things through the House under the Guillotine, some of us will meet with the same fate that has overtaken them when our time comes.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have been more frequently guillotined than any Member in this House, and yet I have kept my Parliamentary head on my Parliamentary shoulders. I am quite
unable to rise to the heights of the lofty language or the unctuous indignation of the hon. Member who has just spoken. My hon. Friend suffers under the disadvantage of being youthful in this respect and not altogether acquainted with the Parliamentary history of the question of the Guillotine. There was the Guillotine long before the right hon. Member for Paisley used it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not in this form.

Mr. O'CONNOR: If not in this particular form, it was in pretty much the same form long before the right hon. Gentleman used it and earned that eternal infamy to which the hon. Member has referred. Mr. Gladstone, when he was endeavouring to pass the Home Rule Bill of 1893, resorted to a form of Closure which was practically the same as is now proposed, or, at any rate, not much different. I appeal to the Leader of the House, who was one of my contemporaries at that time, to say that I am not wrong in that statement. Therefore, so far as eternal infamy is attached to the Guillotine, I am afraid that neither the Leader of the House nor the right hon. Member for Paisley will have the same historical infamy as Robespierre, under his particular and more drastic form of Guillotine. I can speak from experience of Opposition in all its forms. I began my Parliamentary career by five years' vigorous opposition to a Liberal Government, and I am in a position of impartiality. I am against Guillotine on principle, and in the interests of the House of Commons. There is one observation of my hon. and gallant Friend with which I agree entirely. The Guillotine nullifies all Debate. It nullifies it on the Government side, because all they have to do is to sit tight, conscious of the fact that by 10 o'clock each evening the Amendment under discussion will be satisfactorily disposed of in the Division Lobby, and it is equally futile so far as the Opposition are concerned, because the inevitable tendency of the Opposition is not to utilise the time to the best advantage by criticising the Measure of the Government, but to utilise it by exposing the iniquities of the Closure.
The result is that if a Debate begins, say, at 4 o'clock in the day, and lasts until 10 o'clock, the very first Amendment proposed may be the least important
of all those on the Paper. If hon. Members of the Opposition, free from the spirit of resentment which the Guillotine induces, were inclined to put their case on what was to them the most tenable ground, they would make their choice between the Amendments, and they would get rid of the first Amendment as not worth much, and get rid of the second as, perhaps, irrelevant. They might consider the third as open to question, and they would concentrate on the fourth, fifth, or sixth Amendment, instead of stopping progress on the first, because they are made hopeless by a Government proposal which is an embarrassment to anything like free discussion, and their whole object is simply to expose the iniquities of the Government by increasing the area of the Bill, which has been deprived of discussion by the Guillotine.
I am about to say something which may appear paradoxical, but, so far as the House is concerned, the longer I live, the more I believe in the wisdom and necessity of talking out. Carlyle wrote 20 volumes to show the virtue of silence, and superficial critics of Parliamentary institutions, who look from outside, and not like us, from inside, are constantly making the stupid criticism that the House of Commons talks too much and does too little. I am not going to commit myself to the principle that the more it talks the more it does, and the better for the country, but if you look at the whole history of the spirit of this great Parliament, and the whole history of this country, I think one of the finest and sanest principles is that most of our most ardent and violent controversies have ended in a little conversation and compromise behind the Speaker's Chair. Why? Because when men start out, especially in time of intense political feeling, understanding of each other's position is often reached by discussion.
I am not talking of electioneering times; in electioneering times no one is responsible for what he says. In electioneering times when you appeal to the masses your lines have to be what I may call broad, and in electioneering times what on other occasions may be described as an anachronism becomes, to use the classic phrase, a cold-blooded refrigerated lie. But in this great Assembly, when we listen to each other patiently in a spirit of toleration and open-mindedness, we gene-
rally find that we are not nearly as far apart at the end of a reasonable discussion as when we began. That spirit of compromise is the great safeguard which has kept this country from revolution, which has made progress in what I regard as the true form, progress by gradual evolution instead of revolutionary activities, and that great principle of Parliamentary Government which is of such great value to this nation is to a large extent prejudiced by any form of Closure, especially by this violent form of Closure. For these reasons, as one who has been a parliamentarian for many years, who has never lost the opinion that serious, tolerant, good-humoured debate, and at the right moment, necessary compromise are the true foundation of British statesmanship and liberty, I regret the action of the Government.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks from a Parliamentary experience to which nobody in this House can pretend, and I am sure that the speech which he has addressed to the House will find a response in many quarters. But I rise only to say a few sentences and to put a question to the Government and make a suggestion. With the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) I am almost in complete agreement. I regret very much that the Government have found it necessary to propose the Motion which we are debating this afternoon, first because, as the hon. Member who has just sat down said accurately, it is entirely destructive of that free debate which is the very life of the House of Commons, but it goes much further than that, and I want to associate myself with my Noble Friend in suggesting that at this absolutely critical moment in the history, not merely of the House of Commons, but of Parliamentary institutions in this and indeed every other country, it is a matter of regret to have a proposal to curtail debate in the particular way suggested by His Majesty's Government, and I regard it as a very serious blow at this particular moment to the authority of Parliamentary institutions.
I really rose to ask a question and make a humble suggestion. I want to know whether the Government have considered their own precedent of 12 months ago. We had reached a stage in the discussion of the Government of Ireland Bill very much the same as we have reached in
regard to this Bill. I do not pretend to be enormously in love with this Bill. Parts of it are not likely to do much harm; other parts I should be very glad to see deleted altogether. There is one part of it, the first part, which I very cordially support. I do not think that anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) could doubt the efficacy or at any rate the desirability of that portion of the Bill. But we are not discussing the Bill, but the procedure, and the point I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this, whether, if it were urged upon him in a way in which I have no authority to urge it upon him from different parts of the House, he would be prepared to adopt the procedure which was adopted in regard to the Government of Ireland Bill 12 months ago?
There was a proposal then very similar to the present proposal for a time-table under Guillotine, and the suggestion was that that should be put aside and a small Committee appointed. A small Committee was appointed, if I remember aright, representative of the different parties in the House, and that Committee produced a time-table, not a Guillotine, to which all parties in the House assented. That time-table was adopted by the Government and was adhered to loyally by every party in the House, and there was no further difficulty. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider any such suggestion as that as an alternative to the proposals which he now puts forward? If he would I believe that a great deal of the difficulties which obviously arise in consequence of proposals which are distasteful to every part of the House would be overcome.

6.0 P.M.

Dr. MURRAY: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Gentleman, I may make a few remarks about the difficulties of the scheme proposed as applied to this Bill. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has made one of the most cynical speeches to which I have ever listened in this House. I do not refer to his references to the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I understood his philosophy in reference to the Welsh Church Bill, but what I do object to is the tone adopted by hon. Members opposite that after all this Bill means nothing to anybody, that it does no harm and does no good, and for that reason
this Bill has no moral support inside this House or out of it. This Bill is one of the Government's Measures of the policy of social reform which were to give us the new world promised some years ago, and which have been passed through this House. In regard to these other Measures there was no hurry, but when a pet scheme of one or two Members of this House, Tariff Reformers, is introduced it must be forced through the House at all hazards and at lightning speed.
This Measure is harmless according to the cynics opposite. Nothing in this life seems to matter according to hon. Members opposite. I quite admit that that applies to the legislature which has been passed by this Government up to now. It has been all compromise, one party giving a sop to the other. The consequence was that when Measures became Acts of Parliament they did no harm or no good to anybody except to a few officials. That is the sterile, futile legislation of Coalition, but this is not Coalition legislation. These Resolutions are the result of a fight that has been going on for the last two or three weeks between one section of the Coalition and the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Liberal Patronage Secretary goes up and down the country collecting old people who were once called Liberals and forming them into Coalition Liberal Committees, people who are out for O.B.E.'s and things of that kind. They would like to see a pretty ribbon.
The Patronage Secretary collects these people and makes a speech. I have read two such speeches. They are all of this kind: "There are no Tories now in the Government; there are no Conservatives, no Tariff Reformers. They are all one. This is the first Liberal Government that ever existed in the history of this country." When the Patronage Secretary joined the Government it became the first and only Liberal Government in the country. But the Leader of the House said to himself, "I will teach him whether it is a Liberal Government or not. It is a Tariff Reform Government." So the fight goes on. In order that the two sections of the Government may show to the House and the world who is in power, the House of Commons is to be the corpus vile on which vivisection is to be performed. So that it will be demonstrated that the Tariff Reformers are in power. As a Member of the House I object to
being operated on in this way. If this sort of thing goes on I shall claim the sympathy of my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Banbury) and ask him to put the House in his Dogs' Protection Bill so that no operation of this kind can be performed. There is no moral authority behind the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I listened the other evening to the Minister of Education, who was put up to speak in support of the Bill. I never heard a discussion in which medical terms and similes were so freely used. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a dose of strychnine. Strychnine has a most vile taste and the right hon. Gentleman made the usual grimaces which anyone—

6.0 P.M.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is rather foreign to the subject we are now discussing.

Dr. MURRAY: I think I am in order in saying that a Bill like this, which has no moral authority behind it, and in which no one believes, should not be forced through in this way. It is quite plain that the Minister of Education, at any rate, does not believe in the Bill, though he was put up to support it. I was glad to notice that the Leader of the House gave him just one cheer during a half-hour's speech. The Leader of the House ought to be jealous of the traditions and liberties of the House, yet he is going to sacrifice the best element in those traditions in order to get through a Bill in which no one believes, and for which nobody cares. That is the sort of cynical attitude we are seeing. There never was a Bill supported with so much cynicism. I believe that the Leader of the House believes in his Bill. I do not think he would support anything in which he did not believe, but it is cruel for the Government to put up Liberal Ministers to speak in support of Bills in which they do not believe. The Bill is a child that no one owns. The Minister who introduced it said it was not his child, and he disclaimed all responsibility for it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question before us is whether & certain number of days should or should not be given to the discussion of the Bill.

Dr. MURRAY: My opinion is that a sufficient number of days has been given to the Bill. As a matter of fact, the
Government, through various backdoor agencies, tried to make Members of this House believe that we were not to hear any more of the Bill. In the Lobby Coalition Liberals said, "What is the use of worrying about the Resolutions? The Bill will never be seen." Effect ought to be given to that sort of suggestion and we ought never to see the Bill again. But we are going to see it. The Bill will revolutionise not merely the whole fiscal policy of a party but the whole fiscal system of the country. It will undermine the system on which the trade and prosperity of the country have depended for generations. A Bill of that kind wants every kind of attention that the House can give to it. When a proposal similar to this was made by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the distinguished father of the Leader of the House, a Bill of this sort was not brought forward in the House, but the country was consulted upon the question. In those days they acted constitutionally; they did not try to force through a proposal even in an attenuated form on a half sheet of note-paper, as does the present Leader of the House in these degenerate days. I protest against the traditions and the best characteristics of this House being outraged on account of a Bill in which not even the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentlemen opposite or even the Government believe.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his most eloquent appeal against being vivisected. His appeal would have carried much more weight if he had not vivisected or attempted to vivisect the Coalition Government. As a supporter of the Government and a strong supporter of the Bill, I ask the Government to do their best to meet the appeal made by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) and to try to come to some arrangement which will make it unnecessary to carry this particular Resolution. I ask the Government to do that, even though it may entail giving a somewhat longer time to the Bill. I do that mainly on the ground urged by my Noble Friend. I feel very strongly that these Guillotine Resolutions should not be made use of except in cases of real and extreme urgency. This occasion particularly is one on which it would be well if the Government could come to some arrangement of that kind as a precedent. For this reason: there has been more time
wasted over the discussion of this Bill up to now than on any other Measure I have heard discussed since I came to this House in 1918. We may be creating a good precedent if we can succeed in doing without this Resolution. The Bill is highly contentious. In my opinion it is highly important, although it is a very short Bill. Almost everything that could have been said upon it on the Second Beading has already been said on the discussion of the Financial Resolutions. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of only two days having been spent in Committee on those Resolutions and of their having been no obstruction then. I would remind the House that the discussion on the Report stage could hardly be described in quite the same way. The opponents of this Bill have practically exhausted three or four times over the arguments they' have against the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No one answered them, at any rate.

Mr. HERBERT: Generally speaking, the ideas of the supporters of the Bill was that, having answered the arguments once, they did not require to answer them three times more because they were repeated three times. The criticism which has been levelled at this Bill from the other side on certain matters of detail shows that the Opposition, if they were wishful to obstruct, are not only woefully deficient in powers of real scientific obstruction, but that they have not got up their brief in this case. In the discussion of the industries scheduled under the Bill they have shown a most lamentable ignorance of how those industries are carried on and a most lamentable ignorance of the real facts. In the particular industry of which I have spoken before, the scientific glassware industry, they have repeated over and over again things which have been answered, they have repeated the statement that profits were made by those concerned during the War, which has been contradicted; and they have repeated over and over again statements which are not only untrue but grossly unfair and unfavourable to British industry. After all the discussion that has taken place there is very good reason for asking the Opposition to agree to and to keep to an arrangement which may obviate the need of proceeding with this Guillotine Resolution. On the other hand, if the conduct of the Opposition shows that there is an attempt at obstruc-
tion, the remedy may still be resorted to. I hope, however, that, if it is possible, both sides will endeavour to come to some arrangement.

Captain W. BENN: I do not think anyone who has listened to the Debate will find any cause to congratulate the Government on the proposals made by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, nowadays, seems always to be moving either "That the Question be now put" or that the Guillotine be applied to the Debates of House of which he is the Leader. On this particular occasion we have had from his own side of the House one plea, that the Resolution should be dropped, and that from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. We had, also, a speech from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), which cannot have given great pleasure to his leader on the Front Bench. By way of attacking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), he said that Gentleman would go down to eternal infamy—for proposing a Resolution far milder than the Resolution now proposed by the Leader of the House. One wondered, on listening to him, why the Leader of the House did not burn with indignation, instead of which the Leader of the House was defending himself against quotations from his own speeches by explaining that when they were made they had no very serious purpose or great sincerity. That is the defence always put forward in cases of this kind. Regarding the attack which was made upon my leader, the hon. Member for Paisley, I will only say that the Leader of the House inadvertently misled the House as regards some material considerations. He quoted a long extract from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman as a defence of the Guillotine on the ground of its being, inevitably, a part of the Parliamentary machine. But he did not tell us the occasion on which the speech was made. It was made on the occasion of an Amendment to the Address. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to resist an Amendment to the Address. Everybody knows the Government cannot accept an Amendment to the Address, and he was resisting an Amendment, moved by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), suggesting certain modifications of our procedure. That modification has taken place, and the very
reason for which the right hon. Gentleman defended the necessity of the Guillotine has disappeared.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Which speech are you referring to?

Captain BENN: I am referring to the speech made on the fifth day of the Debate on the Address the 14th March, 1913.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon for interrupting, but he is speaking under a misapprehension. The first speech from which I quoted was made on the 25th October, 1911, and the other was on the Finance Bill of 1914. I think, by a slip of the tongue, I said 1913, but it was actually made on the 7th July, 1914. Therefore the hon. and gallant Member has got hold of the wrong speech. I had not traced that one.

Captain BENN: Although his correction is quite justified, I think the Leader of the House has not in the least assisted his case. My point is that the ex-Prime Minister explained that in the absence of a reform of the procedure of this House, something of this kind was a necessity. That was his defence, and that was the whole gravamen of the case. That reform, whether for good or ill, was actually effected, and that at a particularly bad time, namely, when a new House was elected, many Members of which could not be expected to be good judges of Parliamentary procedure. As regards the Finance Bill of 1914, what was the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's action on that occasion? I believe it is the only precedent for the application of the Guillotine to finance proposals, and the reason for it was that there was a statutory obligation to pass that Bill by a certain date. Consequently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley was then obliged to take steps, objectionable in themselves, to see that it was passed within the statutory time. Of course, there is plenty of scope for battledore and shuttlecock on this question of the Guillotine, but I do not really think the Leader of the House has supported his case with anything very definite or convincing. In regard to the 1914 Bill there were several days' discussion, and the Bill was in Committee before there was any Guillotine pro-
posal. The real point, put briefly, is that this and many other things are reacting on the prestige of the House of Commons. I put forward this consideration. Parliamentary institutions are being attacked from many sides. I do not say the alternatives which have been suggested have very much popular favour, because I am sure they have not. But I am quite sure it is not sufficient to show that they are worthless or undesirable. You have also to show that the House of Commons can be effective and good as a governing machine. Therefore we should be particularly jealous of any attacks upon the liberties of the House of Commons.
I do not wish to say anything offensive, but the very mode of the last election in itself cast a certain—I will not say slur—but suspicion upon the House of Commons. It resulted in a House of Commons largely nominated by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I did not expect there would be general concurrence in that opinion in the House itself. I can only say, so far as I was concerned, that I was deposed from a constituency which I had represented for a number of years through a stroke of the pen by an official of the Government, but I am glad to say I was elected to another constituency, that which I have the honour to represent today. Then the liberties of the House were considerably curtailed by Standing Order 37 which confers upon the Chair, on the application of the Government, certain very drastic powers. Further we have an absentee Prime Minister. At present, unfortunately, he is absent for reason which we all deplore. Still he has made a practice of being absent; he is like a sort of quasi President [Interruption]. It is not my province to defend the Prime Minister; that is an event which is deferred for a short time. In any case, we have a Prime Minister who only comes down here twice a day to answer questions—[An HON MEMBER: "Twice a week!"]—and who is represented by the Leader of the House. That is creating an entirely new precedent. Finally we have the growth of the Ministry which in 1914, before the War, numbered about 59 and now numbers about 80. These hon. Gentlemen, of course, vote with a regularity and promptitude which cannot be praised too high. In addition to that they have all private secretaries, and as an ex-private secretary myself, I
am well aware of the censure which falls upon the private secretary who does not loyally support the Government to which he is attached.
Thus, we find that of the 700 Members in the House, 70 of whom are absentees by design—the Irishmen—about 160 are, in one way or another, attached to the Government. You have the privileges of the House curtailed by Standing Orders, and now in favour of a Bill on behalf of which no candidate could be found to stand at the last bye-election the Government proposes to allot time in this way. I shall not criticise the details, but as an instance of the profound objections to which this proposal is open I may point out that a tariff is imposed and we are only to have 3½ hours upon the discussion of the Schedule, or if it happens to be a Friday, only two hours. If we look at Part 1, we shall find there is a most vital proposal affecting the powers of this House to control Orders made by the Board of Trade, and it will come right up against one of the occasions where the Chairman is to put the Question. Is legislation worth having which is produced under conditions of this kind? I say no. Any hon. Member of this House, even though he has only been a Member since the last election, can bear that out from his own experience. Does anyone remember the Profiteering Act? A Select Committee sat under the President of the Board of Trade and then came down to the House with a Bill which had to be passed at once. There was the German Reparation Scheme, the Decontrol of Mines, and many other things which were done in a great hurry because it was necessary to force them through the House of Commons; and this Bill will prove to be another of the same kind. Legislation of this kind is no good. After all is said and done, the value of this House—whatever hon. Members opposite may say about the reiteration of arguments—is that it collects together a number of men of diverse experience and critical power who examine the proposals put forward and who do bring to light matters of very great substance in the interests of the people of this country. This sort of thing injures the prestige of the House. The country can have no respect for a House to which its own Members show so little respect by perpetually absenting themselves from the Divisions—I think only about 50 per
cent. habitually vote. As one who believes in the House of Commons and in its utility and who wishes to maintain its power, I propose to vote against the Resolution.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: The House has listened to a somewhat elaborate defence by the hon. Member who has just sat down of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. I have a very vivid recollection of the time when I was on the Opposition Benches, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley was the Leader of the Government, and the Leader of the House with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith as one of his supporters, and I also remember how on every possible occasion he resorted to a Guillotine Resolution of a character similar to this one. I do not like it, I candidly admit, and as one of the old Members of this House I find myself in a somewhat awkward position. I think many of the older Members of the House on this side find themselves similarly situated. I am a supporter of this Bill. I do not look upon it as a very great or very important Measure, but I am a supporter of it. I am just as strongly opposed to Guillotine Resolutions if it is possible to avoid them, and I do most sincerely regret that the Leader of the House—and my own leader—should have seen fit to ask the House to pass the present Resolution.
I am all for passing the Bill into law as quickly as we possibly can, and I am all for avoiding an Autumn Session if it is possible, but I maintain that the Resolution is premature. The Chairman of Committees has very great powers at the present time. He has got the kangaroo Closure, which is a powerful instrument to wield, and we have seen it used effectively in regard to many Bills. I think the Government would have done well had they given the Bill a day or two in Committee in order to see what the attitude of hon. Members opposite was going to be towards it. We should have had, say, two days to see if they were going to be reasonable or not, and if that had been done I should be much more wholeheartedly in support of the Government on this Resolution. I quite agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) when he said there had not been any particular obstruction, but he added
that he thought the principal reason was that the Members of the present Opposition did not know how to obstruct. There is a certain amount of truth in that. At any rate they have not yet learned how to obstruct in the same artistic fashion as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) did when he used to occupy those Benches, and obstruct the Government Measures of that day. As I have said, I am anxious to see the Bill passed, and if the Government is going to insist on imposing this Guillotine Resolution on the House I suppose I shall find myself somewhat halfheartedly wandering into the Lobby in support of it. I do beg the Government most earnestly to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott). I think it was a most valuable suggestion. At any rate, I earnestly hope my leader will find some way out and will not force the House to pass this Resolution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I believe the pigeon holes of the Treasury and the principal Liberal offices contain stacks of speeches usually made on these occasions, giving quotations by the yard of what the other side said, but in the Labour party we are at present free, and can say what we like. In two or three years' time we may be sitting there on the Government Benches, in which case we shall no doubt give quotations to our adversaries, but at present we are able to look at the subject as citizens. This Debate is an admirable example of what ought not to have occurred. The Leader of the House has not been supported by his own party, the Debate is wholly a waste of time, and I am quite confident that if the Bill had gone to Committee without a Guillotine, and with the very stringent kangaroo Closure witnessed on the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions, he would have got his Bill much more quickly than he will do under this Guillotine arrangement. There are certain quite new circumstances to be considered on this occasion. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman has a party at his command much more extensive and much more docile, well under control to prevent them interfering in Debate or answering any arguments used on this side. In all these cases of contentious Measures the principal difficulty of the Government is not in answering the arguments of the other
side, but of somebody on their own side getting up and talking and giving an opportunity for speakers from the Opposition. They have such an admirably trained Government service now behind them that they need never be afraid of anybody getting up and interrupting the Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Captain S. Wilson) was almost a rebel, and he will not get a coupon for the next Election. They have a thoroughly docile party, and can put up the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Education, or any other ex-Liberal Minister to defend Tariff Reform with perfect complacency. The right hon. Gentleman has also got a fairly good House of Commons to deal with on the Opposition side. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) said he had never seen more crass obstruction in this House than he witnessed on the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions on this Bill, but he is a new Member, and he does not know the good old days and what obstruction really meant.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I had read that, and my point was the difference between the scientific and artistic obstruction of the old days and the different class of obstruction at the present time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member has wonderful powers of reading if he has read all the speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and I can assure him that the obstruction in those days sounded even better than it read. It is a poor Opposition the Government has got at the present time. They cannot talk unlimitedly, for any length of time, on any subject, without notice. They cannot really keep it up. They want practice, and I hope this Bill will give us on these Benches an opportunity of practice of that sort. With an Opposition which has not as yet shown any powers of obstruction, with a Government following completely docile and at the nod and beck of the Leader of the House, I think we might have been spared this Resolution altogether. I cannot help thinking we shall find some difficulty in filling up the five days given for the Committee stage. We shall, of course, do our best, but I am certain that with the extra sixth day which is now being wasted, and with perhaps another day or two which could well be
spared before we rise in August, we should have got through this Bill without any closure at all. Personally, I very much regard the House of Commons, and I should like to see financial matters debated without any Guillotine Closure, but as it is, hon. Members opposite should realise that they are giving us, when we sit on the Government Benches, a very admirable precedent. There was no excuse for this Guillotine, and when we come to introduce our Bills on finance, the capital levy, a good round tax on land values, and a few other thoroughly unpopular Measures so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, we too shall have a Guillotine Resolution. We will play off the same game on you that you are playing off on us, we will force through the House Measures you do not like, and we will deal as we have been dealt by. Judging by the bye-elections, I do not think it will be a remarkable space of time before that happens.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: You do not win them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How about Heywood? I am not ashamed of the Labour vote there, and after you have repealed the Unemployment Act and abolished the wages boards in agricultural districts, you will find that the 40 per cent. vote of which the Prime Minister spoke has been transferred from one side to the other and that the balance will comfortably put a Labour Government into power. Then we shall refer unanimously to this day's Debate, and we shall be able to cull from the speeches of the Leader of the House the arguments we want to use, and if we are still to have this Guillotine Closure, you will have forged a weapon to be used against yourselves, in a moment of mental aberration, as I believe, when there was absolutely no necessity for any Guillotine Resolution whatever.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Committee stage" ["That the proceedings on the Committee stage"].
We have had a long discussion on the general aspects of this Resolution, and I do not propose to add anything to the general discussion except to say that if one of the reasons for moving the Guillotine is really meant as a substantial one, it is a reason why I at any rate shall vote
against it, and that is the question of the abolition of an Autumn Session. I think it would be shameful to trust this Government with the affairs of this country for six months without a meeting of this House, and that is one reason why I should vote against this Resolution. My Amendment, to leave out the words, "Committee stage," would be followed by a consequential Amendment to leave out also the Third Reading, so that the effect would be to confine the Guillotine to the Report stage of the Bill. The reason for the exclusion of the Third Reading is, I think, obvious. The Guillotine in any case only gives it one day. There is power in the Chair already, at the request of the Prime Minister or Leader of the House, for the Closure on the Third Reading Debate, and therefore no Guillotine is required for the Third Reading. If it is true that we are, as an Opposition, feeble and inartistic and unscientific, as has been stated by an hon. Member opposite, it is equally true that the Government are abnormally dumb. Not one of them have taken the trouble to support their Leader to-day in favour of the Guillotine, and any who have spoken have been in favour of asking him to reconsider his attitude towards the Guillotine. The arguments that have been used have been that it would be better to have a trial run of the Bill in Committee, and this Amendment will enable those Members who have used that argument to support us. If we have a thoroughly good discussion in Committee, it is not nearly so important to have a repetition of those discussions on the Report stage, and therefore this Amendment will be willing to give the Government their Guillotine proposals on the Report stage in exchange for a fret: Committee discussion. I do not want to make a speech in the nature of repetition, but I should like to make one addition to one of the arguments used with regard to the Schedule. I do not know whether hon. Members have counted the industries affected in the Schedule, but if they do, and if they consider the amount of time allotted to those important industries, they will see that it is only a question of two or three minutes to each of the industries affected. That is not discussion.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think if the hon. Member had studied those industries better he would have discovered that
every article in the Schedule is not necessarily a separate industry. The industries are comparatively few.

Mr. HOGGE: That is quite likely, but it does not affect what I am saying. I will take from my hon. Friend, without discussing it at all, what is the precise number of industries. Apparently he has not even taken the trouble to count them, but if they are five six, ten, or twelve, there are only three hours for the lot.

Mr. HERBERT: That is more than three minutes each.

Mr. HOGGE: Of course it is, but it is so short a time that they cannot be adequately discussed in that time. If the Leader of the House will accept this Amendment, which would leave the Committee stage free, it would enable him, after the first two or three days in Committee, in which, of course, he would have the advantage of being able to sit beyond 11 o'clock at night if he so desired, to see whether we were deliberately obstructing the Bill, and then he could apply a Guillotine if he liked.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, it is that the Resolution should not apply to the Third Reading, as that is unnecessary, because, by getting the consent of the Chair, the Third Reading could be brought to an end, and that it should not apply to the Committee stage. Whether it should apply to the Report stage or not, I am not clear.

Mr. HOGGE: I am leaving the Report stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I supposed. The hon. Member is leaving the Report stage for discussion afterwards. In other words, having destroyed the beginning and the tail—

Mr. HOGGE: I am leaving the question of the Report stage entirely in the hands of the Government. I do not want to discuss that again, but, supposing my right hon. Friend said, "Very well, we will try free discussion in Committee," this Amendment will permit him to have the Guillotine on Report.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member is making
me an offer to assent to the Guillotine on Report if we come to terms about the Committee.

Mr. HOGGE: Of course, my right hon. Friend knows I cannot make a firm offer for everybody on this side. There are two sections of the Opposition, and we are trying to meet the case of the right hon. Gentleman who wants his Bill under certain circumstances.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Speak for your own party.

Mr. HOGGE: I have no desire to speak for the Labour party, although in many cases I can better speak for Labour than some hon. Members. What I have said, is that if my right hon. Friend were prepared to give a free Committee stage, and it was not abused by carrying on deliberate obstruction, that would satisfy a great part of the House, and we—speaking for my right hon. Friend who leads on this side—would certainly not worry about the Report stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see in the proposal, I am sorry to say, the prospect of an agreement. If it had been possible to come to an agreement about the progress of the Bill, I should have been glad, and I did not put this Resolution on paper until after making inquiries in the usual way. I was led to believe that there was no hope of such an agreement. My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott) pressed upon me that we should at least try to come to an agreement before we asked the House to pass a Resolution of this kind. It is a little late to make such an agreement now, but if I had found it possible to make the agreement, or been led to suppose that we could make the agreement, I would certainly have endeavoured to do so, instead of having recourse to machinery of this kind. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is that, provided there be no persistent obstruction by his Friends in Committee, we should withdraw so much of this Resolution as applies to the Committee stage, and that we should take no further action unless we were prepared to allege and to prove persistent obstruction by his friends. No Leader of the House in recent times, in, making a Motion like this, has ever attempted to base his Motion on persistent obstruction by the Opposition. On the contrary, the
right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr Asquith), in the speeches which I quoted here earlier, carefully refrained from suggesting obstruction.
The fact of the matter is that if you have, let us say, 630 active Members of the House of Commons taking an intelligent interest in all the business that is brought before them, not a few of them anxious to impress their constituents with their diligent attendance and defence of the public interest, it becomes impossible to continue the old, unlimited freedom of debate, and from time to time, under one Leader of the House or another, steps have been taken to curtail that freedom, in order that the House might not be brought into contempt by its inability to carry out its programme. If parties in opposition were near the Government in mind, and were willing to come to an arrangement, I would do my best to meet them, but from the Amendments on the Paper I see no common ground on which to base such a prospect. I observe that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) said, in his opinion, the time given to the Bill was quite sufficient, and that we should really have got it in the time without a Guillotine Resolution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, at any rate, will not complain that the Guillotine is too drastic.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Guillotine itself is bad.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to have it both ways.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No; I want to have the opportunity of debating what we want, and not what the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, is not stating his case quite accurately, if he will allow me to say so. Unlimited discussion does not give the House the right to choose what they will discuss. It constantly gives rise to the taking of an immense amount of time on the very points which the majority of the House least desires to discuss. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman, though he dislikes the Guillotine, has not infrequently voted for it, and hopes to have an opportunity of enforcing it from this Bench in a short time. My hon. Friend opposite had no other alternative to offer to the Govern-
ment than to drop the Bill. That is no doubt what he would do. He is an opponent of the Bill, but that is not a basis for an agreement between the Government and the Opposition. We think it is a necessary Bill. It is a Bill which we included in the programme on which we went to the country, and we must take the steps necessary to get it through in reasonable time. If hon. Members look at the Schedule, I think they will agree that the time is fairly apportioned, and I hope that they will be of the same opinion as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that the time is ample.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that my right hon. Friend has shown no signs at all of any desire to accept in any form the suggestion which has been made. The suggestion is that there should be no Guillotine on the Committee stage, which is the important stage, but that there should be on the Report stage, and, if necessary, on the Third Reading, though it is not necessary on the Third Reading, because, in all probability, Mr. Speaker, if desired, would give the Closure on a single day's Debate. That is exactly where we are. Shall we curtail, on a most important Measure like this, the liberty of the House of Commons on the Committee stage, which is the important thing. Let hon. Members for the moment cast their minds back to the extraordinary powers which the Chairman has. Supposing we are dealing with Clause I, and there is undue debate—I will not say flagrant obstruction—the Government can claim the words of the Clause down to a certain part, or right down to the end of it, or that the Clause be added to the Bill. Most drastic powers could be exercised on the floor of this House within the hearing of Members, who could judge whether there had been unfair discussion. This is a very short Bill in Clauses, and, of course, when you come to the Schedule, there is the same power with the same support from the Committee hearing the Debate, and judging the whole thing as time went on. That is the suggestion which is now made. My right hon. Friend knows, with his experience of the House, that you cannot get these things cut and dried behind the Chair. It is only as Debate goes on, and the views of Members in various parts of the House are expressed, that you get the sense or the feeling of the House.
There can be no doubt at all that there is a great sense of uneasiness in the House
on this matter. I will not put it higher than that. Certainly, as regards the majority, they do not like it at all. Here is a suggestion made. Try the House on the Committee stage, and, if you find that things are not going as they ought to go, then see if you cannot come to some sort of business agreement. I am sure my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say I am very much more concerned about the House of Commons than about any party in it—much more—and I do not like the threats of what may happen in years to come. I really feel on this question, as hon. Members know, very seriously indeed, and I do feel that we are committing ourselves to a step to-day which we may live to regret. I say, try the House of Commons on the Committee stage, and see how it behaves. If it is not going well, then put up your Guillotine Resolution again.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: There are no cheers from behind the right hon. Gentleman.

7.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This suggestion is made in the interest of the House of Commons. I do not know what days are necessary; we cannot tell. We put down ten days for the whole of the Committee stage. You always ask for more than you expect to get. If there are any means of releasing the most important part of this Bill from this dire precedent, which at some future date may be used against hon. Members who are listening to me to-day, I say to Members, if we are driven to a Division, "Guard well your votes."

Question put, "That the words 'Committee stage' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 59.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Dawes, James Arthur
Hopkins, John W. W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hurd, Percy A.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edgar, Clifford B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Jesson, C.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barnston, Major Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Elveden, Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bigland, Alfred
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Forrest, Walter
Lloyd, George Butler


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lorden, John William


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gardner, Ernest
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gee, Captain Robert
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Loyd, Arthur T.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Glyn, Major Ralph
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Goff, Sir R. Park
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Grant, James Augustus
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Macquisten, F. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Maddocks, Henry


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Magnus, Sir Philip


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Greer, Harry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Manville, Edward


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Martin, A. E.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, William Lane


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Haslam, Lewis
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Hugh


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murchison, C. K.


Davidson, J.C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hood, Joseph
Nail, Major Joseph


Neal, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Tickler, Thomas George


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Parker, James
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Pearce, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Perring, William George
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Simm, M. T.
Wilson, Joseph H. (South Shields)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wise, Frederick


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pratt, John William
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Prescott, Major W. H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Woolcock, William James U.


Purchase, H. G.
Stanton, Charles Butt
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Raper, A. Baldwin
Steel, Major S. Strang
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Stewart, Gershom
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Reid, D. D.
Sturrock, J. Leng



Remnant, Sir James
Taylor, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Armitage, Robert
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Irving, Dan
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnstone, Joseph
Royce, William Stapleton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spoor, B. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayward, Evan
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newtom


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holmes, J. Stanley
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Major Barnes and Mr. Hogge.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I regret we were unsuccessful in the suggestion we made to the Leader of the House in discussion on the last Amendment to try to effect some kind of compromise with regard to the number of days, and I am very disappointed to find that all the Members of the Government who spoke in favour of a compromise and against imposing the Guillotine were all found in the Lobby voting with the Government in favour of no compromise and the Guillotine. I do not notice on the Government Bench anybody who has anything to do with the Bill, and therefore I beg to move an adjournment of the Debate until the Minister is present. This is a very important question dealing with the time of the House, yet the Leader of the House is not present.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot take that Motion. One of the Ministers in charge of the Bill is here

Mr. HOGGE: This is a question of the division of the time of the House, and surely it is unusual for an under Minister to take charge of a Motion in which the question of the allocation of the time of the House is an important matter. We have been refused any compromise on the Schedule. The time of the House is entirely in the hands of the Leader of the House, and I think we are entitled to ask that the Leader of the House should not be absent when we are discussing the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: No Minister can be expected to be here at every moment of the Debate. The Leader of the House was present up to the taking of the last Division, and he may have been detained elsewhere for a moment. There could not be any Motion to report Progress, and I could not accept a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the word "Five" ["Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Ten."
If you, Mr. Speaker, cannot accept a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate, I cannot move it, and therefore I shall move my Amendment to extend the period of the Committee stage. Incidentally, I should like to say that it is possible to send for the Leader of the House, who has as much right to be in his place as we have to be in our places. The reason we desire 10 days is obvious; five are not sufficient. If hon. Members will look at page 2159 of the Order Paper they will notice a succession of Amendments which seek to make a different allocation of the subjects which can be discussed. Of the first seven Amendments on the Paper, six are consequential to the first. It is unnecessary to go over the subjects which are dealt with in these Clauses, because, unless we know that there is to be a different allocation of time, it is scarcely worth wasting time in discussing subjects which are to be discussed inside these periods.
I should like to say this about the Guillotine: that it is not so much the question of putting time into compartments that one deplores as the fact that on any one subject the House never gets a free run. On one particular subject the House very frequently develops discussion which is in the nature of a free run, and a decision on which determines what the action shall be of those who have subsequent Amendments down. Quite frequently when we have a longer run on a particular subject the effect of that is to shorten further proceedings. That is my reason for not going into the details of these re-arrangements. I want to make one specific remark about the Government's suggestion on page 2157 of the Order Paper. It deals with the fifth and the last of the Committee days. On that day new Clauses are to be taken along with the Schedule, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion. That is to say, there is only 3½ hours in which to discuss the whole of the Schedule. I do not know whether the Government are going to make any concessions, but, if they are, surely on the question of the Schedule they could afford to give us more time. I make another suggestion now to my hon. Friend who at
the moment is in charge of the House. We ought to have a day extra for discussion. My 10 days would give us that, but if he is not going to give the 10, I hope he will in the course of his reply say whether the Government are prepared to give any concession at all.
Another Amendment I should like to refer to is this, and it concerns a vital matter of principle and suggests the necessity why we should have 10 days: Under any discussion on the Finance Bill the Eleven o'Clock Rule does not operate. The Guillotine, as set up by this Amendment, brings our proceedings to a conclusion at 10.30, half an hour before the close of the ordinary Parliamentary day. So that, not only does not the Government programme deprive the House of the right to discuss beyond 11 o'clock, but it actually takes half an hour of the time of the ordinary Parliamentary day. That is why we suggest that, instead of five days, we should have 10 allotted for the Committee stage of this Bill. The concession for which I ask does not imperil the Autumn Session. It does not make any suggestion beyond this, that the House should sit till the end of August instead of till the end of the third week. In view of the nature of the changes suggested, the Government must have a very weak case if they are going to confine discussion to these five days. Let me again emphasise my suggestion as to the necessity of more fully discussing the Schedule, and at least having one day for it alone. That is not, indeed, enough time for adequate discussion, but I do think that in one day there might be time to draw attention to the more important cases, and it will give some indication of the mind of the Committee in regard to these. It will be fatal if we are to be asked to put through the Schedule in three and a half hours. Hon. Members will notice that Amendments have been put down to every one of these particular articles—

Mr. STURROCK: By the same people!

Mr. HOGGE: By the same people, because, naturally, they think the same way on the subjects on which they agree. We do not want Division after Division. Everybody has some objection to one or other of these aspects of the Schedule, and you cannot deal with them all in three and a half hours.

Mr. STURROCK: The Government, I trust, will be very cautious before accepting the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has put forward. I have listened to a good deal of the discussion to-day, and to the rather lengthy speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the time allotted to the consideration of this Measure by the House. I confess that not one single argument appears to me to hold water. For example, it is represented very vehemently, if not quite so sincerely, that this Measure is to be pushed through by the aid of the Guillotine. Here we have the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, and others, very busy taking up the whole of this afternoon and evening in arguing that sufficient time is not being given to consider the Measure itself. They are quite willing to waste a Parliamentary day on the question of how many hours or days of the remainder of the Session should be given to this Bill. I submit that that alone is proof of the fact that they are not so anxious as they appear to be thoroughly to discuss this Measure as they are intent upon manufacturing political capital for use out-of-doors.
His proposal, says the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), is a very mild one, and no exception need be taken to it in any quarter. It is only going to mean that we will remain here until the end of August before we are allowed to separate—thanks to the indulgence of the hon. Gentleman! He confessed this afternoon that he was very much annoyed at there being no prospect of an Autumn Session. He does not feel that the Government can carry on without his aid from the other side of the House. I do not quite know whether it is, as it appears to me, according to his statement given a little earlier, that we are going to be kept here in order that the Government may have his support, and in order that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull may be able to talk day and night throughout the summer. That sort of thing does not hold out any attraction for us. As to the argument of the hon. Gentleman that the Guillotine is a nefarious weapon used for stifling discussion, is there anything further from the fact? It has been said to-day, very unctuously by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin and by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, that Parliamentary
institutions are on their trial, and a great many things very adverse to them were being said out of doors. Why are they on their trial? Why are they being criticized? Mainly, I think, because certain Members of this House, like the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, come down here, day after day, take part in Debate after Debate, and monopolise the time of the House. So those, whom I venture to describe as the strong silent Members, are altogether kept out of the picture. They are doing their work, nevertheless!
I do think, however, that this sort of thing is rather trading upon our good nature. There are Members of the House whom we hear, as a matter of fact, whatever hour of the day or night one may happen to come. You are sure to find one or other of them talking, and shedding crocodile tears from the Opposition Bench over this iniquitous Government which is going really to put a period to their eloquence. All I have to say as to the Guillotine, as worked out in the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is that it seems to me to be one of the most effective ways of showing the public and the Press—and the Press more than the public need to be shown—that this House is a businesslike assembly. There is no town council, there is no county council in the country which would cavil at these proposals, because they give every opportunity to every section of genuine opinion to make good its particular point. If those concerned are creating pure obstruction and piling up capital for use in the constituences, then I do not think that either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, nor I, or any other Member of the House is entitled to object, because, really, these matters ought to be considered in a statesmanlike way, not from the point of view of trying to resuscitate the fortunes of dissentient Liberals.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I was not in my place when the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) moved his Amendment. He will, perhaps, accept my assurance that I did not go out without a motive, which was but to see whether I could possibly come to any arrangement that might meet the views expressed by my hon. Friend opposite, or whether an arrangement could be come to as to some other
substituted form of this Resolution. The hon. Gentleman proposes 10 days for the Committee stage. I must ask him to remember that this Bill is founded upon Resolutions, and the Bill to a great extent merely repeats the Resolutions on which the House of Commons spent three days in Committee and another day on Report.
Every Amendment in respect of the Schedule of goods which my hon. Friend, I think, particularly dwelt upon, and most strongly, was as equally in order on the Committee and Report stages of the Resolutions as they will be on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. A Leader of the House does his best to meet the desires of the Opposition, if he can, and to proceed by way of agreement instead of proceeding by way of compulsion. I am no exception to that rule. I would gladly make such agreement, but then we must be clear as to the kind of agreement that is possible. There are so many people to consider in making the agreement. There are at least two parties representing the Opposition and, covering, I am not quite certain, how many different points of view; not to speak of the one party which forms the Coalition, and which also covers certain differences of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—on detail.
If it were possible, and it may be, that the two parties opposite are prepared to consider my proposal, I will make them this offer. I would allocate an extra day to the Committee if that extra day would be devoted definitely to the Schedule if my right hon. Friend and those representing the two parties opposite would accept that as satisfactory, and would give us the Resolution in that form, and also agree that after giving this extra day we are not to sit late. If my right hon. Friend's intention is that we are simply to trust to a general indisposition for a long discussion, whether it be over many days or late sittings, I do not think that is sufficient foundation for me to build upon. I should be glad if we could come to terms. I think my offer is a fair one, and if it is accepted on behalf of the Independent Liberals and the Labour party I will move an Amendment to that effect in my Resolution. I could not leave this to chance without any definite understanding either as to the number of hours we are to sit or the number of days.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has alluded with good humour and playfulness to the number of parties on this side of the House. I do not know how many parties sit on the other side, but I should be inclined to say tot homines tot sententiœ, because there are far more parties represented on the side of the Leader of the House than on this side. There is a real change in the composition of parties and no one knows what will be poured into the crucible at the next General Election. We must move in the new atmosphere and determine to adhere to the best traditions of this House in that atmosphere. My right, hon. Friend's offer is not the suggestion which I put to him. What I suggested was that in this Committee stage he should at any rate try the House of Commons in Committee, and see whether it will not work and function without obstruction or unduly delaying the ordinary business of the Government. That is my suggestion. I believe it would work. I speak simply for those I represent, and I cannot say anything as to the attitude of the Labour party. I believe if my right hon. Friend said, "Very well, I understand from you that six or seven days without the limit of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, which is always the case with Finance Bills, will be sufficient," I believe he would get his Committee stage in that time. As far as we are concerned we would do our best to conclude the Committee stage in that time. I have, relatively speaking, only been in the House a short time—14 years—but my right hon. Friend has had a long experience and speaks with 29 years' experience, and I am sure he will confirm me when I say that there has never been an understanding arrived at across the Floor of the House which has been broken. In the case of the Irish party, with all their fighting strength as a Parliamentary force it was their pride that they never broke a bargain, and they never did. Whatever the changes in the House are, I believe there is a spirit here which is independent and lives on apart from the parties who for the time being compose the House of Commons. I believe in that spirit. That is the offer I made. My right hon. Friend says he cannot accept that, and he offers us another day within the Guillotine, but I am sorry I cannot accept it, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My offer was to confine the discussion to 11 o'clock on any of these days. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend would confine it to six days or insist upon more. If we are to come to an arrangement it must be one which causes the Debate to finish in six days, and does not require Members to sit after 11 o'clock at a time when late sittings are a great inconvenience to the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to late sittings, I wish to point out that on Finance Bills there is no Eleven o'Clock Rule, and if we fix a rule about 11 o'clock misunderstandings will arise. I could, of course, speak for myself, but I really could not guarantee that a sort of voluntary Closure would be acceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. C. WHITE: To-night I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) held up as a paragon of all that is good by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he has been spoken of by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) in terms which I am sure every hon. Member will deprecate. I am sorry the Leader of the House did not quote to us his own speeches, because after condemning in very vigorous language a proposition for the allocation of the time of this House, which was not for the purpose he has mentioned this afternoon, that is to avoid an Autumn Session, but was actually made in the Autumn Session, he said:
If it went to the wrong people or was wasted, or was not employed to the best advantage, you are responsible as well as I, and the House of Commons also is responsible. They gagged themselves to prevent themselves from getting adequate time for the discussion of these Measures. I need scarcely say as between the six days of the hon. Gentleman and the 16 days of the learned Attorney-General representing the Government I am for the 16 days. But it is perfectly plain that 16 days for a Committee discussion of the problems which we have in front of us is so patent a pretence that for anybody who has taken part in the discussion of this Bill, who knows our House of Commons procedure and knows the many difficulties which are never considered outside the House but constantly arise in the House, to pretend that those 16 days are sufficient—I do not like to use harsh language—but I will say that it is a pretence to which I will not be a party. It is not adequate. The House of Commons cannot do its duty to the Bill in that time. It will not be the Bill of the House of Commons, it will not be the Bill of the nation. It will
be the Bill of the Government, and the defects which are in it will be due to the restrictions imposed by the Government on the free actions of the representatives of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1911; cols. 224–25, Vol. 30.]
This is not altogether the Bill of the Government, but it is a Measure forced upon the Government because of Election pledges given in 1918 by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I think those words admirably represent our position to-day. After vigorously announcing the allocation of time on that occasion the Leader of the House and his colleagues went into the Lobby against it, and now I find the same hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are going to go into the Lobby in favour of a similar proposal foregoing all the principles which they then advocated. Of the two Bills in question, this Measure has much more far-reaching consequences. We have been told that the House is overburdened with legislation, but may I ask how many useless days and nights have we spent already in this House? I remember sitting for 36 hours—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now dealing with the Resolution as a whole, but with an Amendment fixing the number of days for the Committee stage. The Resolution proposes five and the Amendment ten days.

Mr. C. WHITE: I was trying to show how the time of the House has been wasted, and how it is now proposed to penalise the House in consequence. I think we should have a free discussion on this most important Motion without any time allocation at all. I am not sanguine that we could carry on our opposition for ten days because we should not get an answer to any of our questions. We shall find the dumb and docile Members of the House supporting this Resolution, and they will come up subterranean passages when the Division Bell rings and ask each other what the Division is about. I shall support the Amendment which has been brought forward, although it is not quite what I should like. I wish to show an uncompromising hostility to the allocation of any time at all for the discussion of this Bill, and I hope that even now the Leader of the House will consider what he said in 1911. I have read all his speeches on that occasion this afternoon, and they are very much opposite to what
he has said to us to-day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember what he said in 1911 and let us have no allocation of time whatever. Let us have a free and frank discussion of this Bill, which is of great importance as affecting the future

of this country, and which has only been brought forward in order to fulfil Election pledges.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 51.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[7.47 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morrison, Hugh


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gilbert, James Daniel
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murchison, C. K.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nail, Major Joseph


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Neal, Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greer, Harry
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gritten, w. G. Howard
Nield, Sir Herbert


Barnston, Major Harry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, James


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pearce, Sir William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Perring, William George


Betterton, Henry B.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bigland, Alfred
Haslam, Lewis
Pratt, John William


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Purchase, H. G.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Remnant, Sir James


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hood, Joseph
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jesson, C.
Scott, A M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seddon, J. A.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Simm, M. T.


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sitch, Charles H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanton, Charles Butt


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stewart, Gershom


Davidson, J.C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Dawes, James Arthur
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Townley, Maximilian G.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Loyd, Arthur T.
Waddington, R.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Waring, Major Walter


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edgar, Clifford B.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macquisten, F. A.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Maddocks, Henry
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Wise, Frederick


Fell, Sir Arthur
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Manville, Edward
Woolcock, William James U.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Martin, A. E.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Forrest, Walter
Mitchell, William Lane
Younger, Sir George


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Molson, Major John Elsdale



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Gee, Captain Robert
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
McCurdy.


NOES.


Armitage, Robert
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sexton, James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Swan, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey).


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, John Edmund
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)



Hayward, Evan
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Hogge and Major Barnes.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Quite a number of Amendments fall by reason of the decision to which the House has just come, and the next in order to be moved would be the substitution of 12.30 for 10.30 as the time for closing Debates each evening. We have come to the conclusion, as far as we are concerned, and after the intimation made by the Leader of the House we shall, at any rate, best consult what we conceive to be our duty in the matter and our own convenience if we do not move any more of our Amendments,

many of which are consequential, and content ourselves with our protest in the Division Lobby against the Motion as a whole. That is an indication of the spirit in which we would have carried out the understanding I put to my right hon. Friend, and which I deeply regret that, in the interests of the House of Commons, he did not see his way to accept.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 52.

Division No. 163.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Edgar, Clifford B.
Hurd, Percy A.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jephcott, A. R.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jesson, C.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barnston, Major Harry
Fell, Sir Arthur
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, Walter
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bigland, Alfred
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Gee, Captain Robert
Lloyd, George Butler


Blair, Sir Reginald
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gilbert, James Daniel
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lorden, John William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Loyd, Arthur T.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Greer, Harry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm. Ladywood)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Maddocks, Henry


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Magnus, Sir Philip


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)>


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Manville, Edward


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Haslam, Lewis
Martin, A. E.


Cope, Major William
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Mitchell, William Lane


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hood, Joseph
Murchison, C. K.


Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Nall, Major Joseph
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Waddington, R.


Neal, Arthur
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waring, Major Walter


Nield, Sir Herbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Parker, James
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Pearce, Sir William
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Peel; Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Perring, William George
Simm, M. T.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wise, Frederick


Pratt, John William
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Woolcock, William James U.


Purchase, H. G.
Stanton, Charles Butt
Worsfold, T. Cato


Raper, A. Baldwin
Steel, Major S. Strang
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Stewart, Gershom
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Reid, D. D.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Younger, Sir George


Remnant, Sir James
Taylor, J.



Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Armitage, Robert
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Widnes)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Spoor, B. G.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tootill, Robert


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Glanville, Harold James
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, John Edmund
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)



Hayward, Evan
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Major Barnes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill shall be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned:

Orders of the Day — (1) COMMITTEE STAGE.

Five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the pro-

Table.


Proceedings on Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.







p.m.


First
…
…
Clause 1 and Clause 2 (1) to the end of paragraph (a)
…
7.0


The remainder of Clause 2 (1)
…
10.30


Second
…
…
The remainder of Clause 2
…
7.0


Clause 3
…
10.30


Third
…
…
Clauses 4, 5 and 6
…
7.0


Clause 7
…
10.30


Fourth
…
…
Clauses 8 and 9
…
7.0


Clauses 10 to 16
…
10.30


Fifth
…
…
New Clauses
…
7.0


Schedule, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
10.30

ceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

Orders of the Day — (2) REPORT STAGE.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceed-

Table.


Proceedings on Report Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.










p.m.


First
…
…
New Clauses and Part I. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
7.0


Part II. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
—


Second
…
…
Part II. of the Bill
…
…
…
…
7.0


Part III. and Schedule of the Bill, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion
10.33

Orders of the Day — (3) THIRD READING.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

After this Order comes into operation, any day shall be considered an allotted day for the purpose of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day: Provided that 2 and 4.30 p.m., respectively, shall be substituted for 7 and 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be, and on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of Clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.

A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in

ings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

Committee: The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be forthwith put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the-Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the Motion.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment, so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, or that further consideration of the Bill or any Debate be now adjourned, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day or at any particular time being proceeded with, on any other day or at any other time, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

WAYS AND MEANS.

[8TH JUNE.]

Resolution reported,
That the stamp duty chargeable on local authorities in respect of the audit of their accounts by district auditors shall, instead of being charged according to the existing scale be charged according to a scale which shall be fixed by the Treasury after consultation with the Minister of Health, and shall be such as to secure that the duties levied shall be sufficient to meet the costs incurred in respect of the remuneration, including superannuation allowances, and the expenses of district auditors.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.

As amended [in the Standing Committee], considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Surely this is not the Third Reading. I thought we were going to take the Report stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: There were no Amendments on the Paper, and I have not received notice of any.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think that anyone on this side understood that the Police Pensions Bill would be taken to-day. We certainly had Amendments which we desired to put down. Is it not possible to give notice when Orders are going to be taken in this way?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is impossible to forecast—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question that the Bill be now read the Third time has been proposed, and we cannot go back upon that, but, of course, the Third Reading may be debated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Remnant) was going to say a word. I really rose because I thought that the Third Reading was going through
without a single word from the Home Secretary. After all, the discussion on the Second Reading was not very prolonged, and I think we might have had some explanation from the Home Secretary as to any changes that have been made in the Bill in Committee. I, personally, am serving on more than one Committee at present, and it is rather difficult in that case to follow the doings of other Committees. Not being a member of the Committee on the Police Pensions Bill, I have been unable to follow any alterations made in that Committee, but I daresay the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to explain the alterations and Amendments that have been accepted by the Government. I only wish to refer to one item in the Bill, namely, Clause 27, which makes the Bill applicable to policewomen. I hear criticisms in many parts of the country that policewomen, while undoubtedly a desirable innovation, are not absolutely necessary; that we got on without them in the past; and that, in view of the very stringent financial situation in which we now find ourselves, we might have got on a little longer without them. They are, I suppose, a product of the War. I shall not be accused of being actuated by any anti-feminist views on this matter. I strongly support the claim of women to equality before the law, politically, and in every other way, and, therefore, I am not speaking from any prejudice against women as police. The fact remains, however, that this force of women police fulfils only a limited function in comparison with men police, and I think that any Bill which includes them on the same terms as men for pension ought to be taken as an opportunity—of which we all have too few in the House—to raise the whole policy.
I have seen these policewomen in pairs in remote places in the country—at cross roads and so on—where in the ordinary course of events there would be no men police. I do not know what their functions are in places of that sort. I believe they do good work in the great cities, in dealing with young women, not of the unfortunate class, but those who may, for want of a little friendly advice, become members of that class. In country districts and rural suburban districts I cannot see what use they are. If the idea is that they should be able to interfere in irregularities in those districts, it
can at once be seen that they would have to be multiplied indefinitely, because they are recognisable at a great distance, and immediately the fact became known that they were on patrol persons who might wish to commit irregularities would naturally go to another part of the district. In the cities, in main thoroughfares and so on, I have no doubt that they do valuable work, but I think that their numbers should be kept as low as possible, solely on account of the financial stringency of the times. If we were a wealthy country, as we were in 1914, I daresay we could afford to have a strong, well-paid, well-organised corps of women police, but to-day we are poor as a result of the War. I am afraid that possibly there is more need of women police than in 1914. The War has not only injured us financially, but has injured us terribly in our moral character. Anyone looking at the police court reports to-day has that fact brought painfully to his notice. I do feel, however, that the policewoman does not justify the expenditure upon her. I see that, in an address given by that sturdy henchman of the Home Secretary, namely, Sir Basil Thomson, he talked of having a vast women police organisation. He wanted people, he said, to be decked out in diamonds and Paris frocks and sent into the fashionable resorts to mix in the most fashionable society, in order to detect the gentleman who, I believe, is known as the swell-mobsman—the criminal who goes about in a swallow-tailed coat and white tie and does not drop his h's. Then he said that he wanted women of all classes, so that it should be a vast intelligence service system assisting the regular force. My hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Colonel Wedgwood) says, in order to spy upon himself and me. That is not my complaint. They can spy upon me as much as they like. If they look at my letters they will find their work well cut out. But that is not my complaint. My complaint is that these grandiose ideas which have sprung up during the War of having a vast intelligence service attached to the police, with male and female members, have got to be dropped in these hard, cold days of penury and stringency with regard to our finances. Therefore, before the Bill is passed, we should have a little more information about this picturesque and no doubt desirable, but at the same time, costly
innovation of police women. This is a Bill that affects every constituency in the country, and we all wish the police force well, and the necessary improvements to their lot as outlined in the Bill, I am certain, are welcomed in all sections of the House.

Sir J. REMNANT: While one admits the necessity of pushing on as fast as we can with the legislation of the Session, one is taken rather by surprise and one would have liked, on the Report stage, to have moved Amendments dealing with various matters contained in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown sympathy with those moving Amendments in the earlier stage, would have considered worthy of discussion at least. There is one point specially, amongst a good many others, which I believe not only the Government but all outside who are interested in the police question believe is necessary to make the force throughout the country work on a proper system. I refer to the rather chaotic conditions under which the men now have to serve, some having to serve under a system of 26 years before they get the maximum pension, while others, since 1st July, 1919, have to serve under a 30 years' system before they get their pension; and others again, in 10 or 12 counties, have an age limit by which they have to serve until they are 52 or 55 years of age and only get their pension after 26 years' service if they are able to get a medical certificate. Such a system is quite contrary to the wish certainly of the Home Office, which has always said it is anxious to standardise the terms of service of all the police force. Certainly that was the main point urged by the Desborough Committee. If you are going to have men serving for different terms before they can get their pension, those who retire first naturally consider themselves the lucky ones, and those who remain on and have to serve a longer period are bound to be discontented, and as long as there is discontent in the force we shall not have efficiency. Quite recently, following out the recommendation of the Desborough Report, Barnstaple was merged in the Devon County Police. In Devon the maximum pension is granted at the end of 26 years' service. The Barnstaple men, unless they can get a medical certificate at the end of 26 years, have to serve until they are 55
years of age, so that when they are merged with the Devon County Police you get some men serving 26 years and some 30, while others, unless they retire after 26 years with a medical certificate, for whatever period they may have undertaken to serve, remain on till the age of 55. The same thing is happening in one or two other counties. That is a point which is worthy of the serious consideration of the Home Office. The men to-day are feeling that they ought to be treated on the same lines. You get the men before 1st July, 1919, who contracted under the old system. There are many men who would have joined prior to that date, who were serving with the forces, but were not demobilised in time. Some joined just after 1st July, 1919. They have to serve for 30 years. I put that case to the Home Secretary.
I should like to say a few words on the question of the widow's pension as set out in the Schedule. There again we have not had time to consult with the Home Secretary on the points I should like to have raised. I am credibly informed that the men are anxious that their widows should get a better pension than is allowed under the Bill. Towards that they are quite prepared to make a contribution from their weekly wage. They offer to give a ¼ per cent., in addition to the 2½ per cent. which is at present deducted from their pensions, and the men who have to serve for 30 years against 26 are quite prepared to contribute a ½ per cent. further from their pay in order to be put on the same level as the others, but they are all anxious, in order to get better pensions for their widows, to contribute an additional ¼ per cent. in order that they may have the increase. The point was raised in Committee, and it was stated that the cost of giving the increased scale of pension for the widows would amount to something like £500,000 a year. With all due respect to those who made out that estimate I dispute it entirely. I do not believe it will be anything like that amount. At any rate it is a matter of which the men feel deeply. It is a question which leaves itself open for friendly discussion, and I believe that with a little time given to us we might arrive at a settlement. I hope the Home Secretary will believe that I am not complaining in any way of his treatment of the whole matter. He has been entirely sympathetic
and anxious to do all he could. Feeling that, one is all the more anxious to have an opportunity of discussing these points with him. The men are quite willing to contribute, and I am sure that the Home Office would be glad to meet them and to help them, and between the two probably a settlement, amicable and satisfactory, on all these points might be arrived at.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: These Front Bench arrangements have sometimes far-reaching effects, and certainly the arrangement this afternoon which has brought on this Bill without any notice has been the last of a series of misfortunes which have happened to some of us who were concerned with this matter upstairs. First of all, we met and could not get a quorum.

Sir J. REMNANT: Twice!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Another day we had arranged to meet, but the meeting had to be postponed to suit the convenience of the Home Secretary. When finally a quorum was obtained, and the Home Secretary was able to attend, several of my hon. Friends and myself were unable to be present because we had been summoned to attend other Committees. In my case I happened to be chairman of another Committee on that day. As a result, we were not able to move Amendments which we had on the Paper; but the Home Secretary was good enough to say that he would have a conference with us with a view to our re-introducing such of these Amendments as he could accept on the Report stage. That intention has been frustrated by what has happened to-day. I only rise now to ask if the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance that these Amendments, or some of them, will be considered, and, if possible, introduced in another place. My right hon. Friend is well aware to which Amendments I attach importance.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): As the House knows, this Bill has come on quite unexpectedly. No one anticipated it less than I did. It was only this afternoon that I was discussing with my hon. Friend (Mr. N. Chamberlain) arrangements for a meeting. It is very important that this Bill should not be lost. It would be a great pity if we lost an opportunity to take it another stage. Of course, there is another place where
Amendments can be moved, and I will undertake at once to have a discussion with hon. Members—I know their points—and in regard to any arrangement which is come to I will undertake to have Amendments moved in another place. I will not discuss the question of the widows' pensions to-night; but I am afraid that my hon. Friend (Sir J. Remnant) is not quite correct in his estimate of the cost. However, we can discuss that. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) as to women police should have been addressed to a meeting of the police authorities rather than to the Home Office.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Metropolitan police?

Mr. SHORTT: There is nothing in this Bill that makes the employment of women police compulsory. It remains, as it always has been, entirely a matter for the individual police authorities. All that this Bill does provide is that if women police are employed, they must be employed properly. That is all that it does. I am sure the House approves of that. With regard to the Metropolitan police, the few women police we have are exceedingly valuable.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: After the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not want to deay the proceedings. The Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) covers the case of many officers who during the War, at the request of their watch committees, continued their service, although they were entitled to retire on pension. Having continued their service, I understand that their right to a pension is not in as good a position now as it was before. I should like to make sure that these officers will not be put in a worse position by our passing this Bill. Their position is one of considerable hardship. They continued their service at the request of their watch committees, and some are continuing it now in a period of stress. I understand that their pension may, for other causes which are not at present applicable, be taken away from them if this Bill passes. That is the assurance I received from my own watch committee, and the officers are seriously concerned about the matter.

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct, but if he will discuss the matter with my Friend the Under-Secretary, we will see that the point is dealt with.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I presume that the Home Office has formed some estimate of the cost of this Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information?

Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry that I have not the figures with me. The Bill has come on so unexpectedly. The cost will be considerable. I will get the figures and send them on to my hon. and gallant Friend.

DENTISTS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the Debate on the Report stage of the Bill begins, I should like to ask whether we can move the Adjournment of the House in order to postpone discussion of this Bill? It has been sprung upon us quite unexpectedly, and there are no Amendments on the Paper.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There must be some Motion before the House. At present there is none. I must put the first Amendment. It will then be possible for the hon. and gallant Member to move the Adjournment of the Debate if he wishes. The new Clause of which notice has been given is not in order on Report.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the Clause about Ireland?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No new Clause is in order on Report if it is not the Paper.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of practice of dentistry by unregistered persons.)

(3) Nothing in this Section shall operate-to prevent—

(c) the performance in any public dental service of minor dental work by any person under the personal supervision of a registered dentist and in accordance with conditions approved by the Minister of Health after consultation with the Dental Board to be established under this Act.

(4) This Section shall come into operation on the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act or on the expiration of such further period not exceeding two years as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has handed in several Amendments in a form which it is not easy to deal with, but I will do my best. The first Amendment is in Subsection (3) to add a new paragraph, "(d) the extraction of teeth without fee or payment." It appears to me that this Amendment is covered by paragraph (b).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section 3, at the end of paragraph (c), to add a new paragraph:
(d) The extraction of teeth without fee or payment.
I propose this Amendment to safeguard the position of the mother of a large family. Frequently in the course of domestic life the mother of a family has to extract a loose tooth from a child's mouth, and a not unusual method is to tie one end of a string to the knob of a door and the other end to the tooth, and then to bring a red hot poker near the child's face so that the child pulls back its head, and the tooth is drawn. That is not skilled dentistry, but that is no reason for making it a crime. Under this Bill anybody who tampers with the teeth of people commits a crime, and I would like to have it made perfectly definite that a mere domestic extraction of that sort should not be treated as a crime.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The extracting of a tooth by the mother of a family could not be said to be practising dentistry. A domestic object of that sort is not prevented in any way by the Clause as it stands.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That depends on what the Bill is. The object of the Bill is quite clear—to create a vested interest in dentistry, to create a corporation of people who will have the sole right to practise as dentists. Once you give them that right, they may just as well interfere with domestic operations as with any other form of dentistry. At any rate I see no harm in having these words inserted in
the Bill which will insure that there will be no interference of this sort. Directly you give experts, whether doctors, dentists, or any other practitioners, the power to interfere in domestic life, they always make the best of their opportunities.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I believe that this is unnecessary, but I will not rule it out of order.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am rather surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend moving this Amendment after the discussion which we had on this point in Committee. I then made it clear that we took out the words "without fee or reward" for the very simple reason that we wanted to prevent unqualified people starting by undertaking to extract teeth without fee or reward on the understanding that they would be able to sell artificial teeth to these people, so that they would be really practising and by some camouflage defeating the whole object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to prevent unqualified people tampering with the teeth of the nation. The House will agree that something in this direction is long overdue. The case of a mother taking out the tooth of her own child cannot be held to be practising dentistry, either directly or by implication. It is neither practising nor preparing to practice dentistry, and, so far as this case is concerned, these words are unnecessary.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should have thought that it was practising dentistry.

Sir A. MOND: My hon. and gallant Friend surely does not mean to say that an operation of that kind is dentistry. I can assure him that that class of domestic operation to which he attaches so much importance is not endangered by this Clause, and I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On the assurance of my right hon. Friend I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out Clause 1.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not in order on Report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
Clause 1 is the vital Clause. Obviously we are utterly unprepared to debate this matter now. We have got before us a Bill which has just come up from Committee. There are no Amendments on the Paper. We have had to hand Amendments in most hurriedly. We are now told that an Amendment to leave out Clause 1 is out of order. I always thought that on the Report stage an Amendment to leave out a Clause was in order provided that it was on the Paper, and that provides one more reason for asking that the Debate should be adjourned

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Motion. I am not hostile to this Bill, but I have received a great many communications from dentists in my constituency asking for certain Amendments, not wrecking Amendments. Owing to the way in which this Bill has been brought on, I have not had time to put them on the Paper. I have not even got the wording here. There was no time even to telephone to have it sent up. In the circumstances I do not think it quite fair to proceed with this Bill in view of the great importance of this Measure affecting so many people in the country as well as the general health of the community. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to give it another chance. I do not think that anyone is opposed to the principle of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am quite sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not obstruct it unnecessarily.

Sir A. MOND: I am sorry I cannot accept the proposals to adjourn the Debate. At the beginning of this Session I was strongly pressed by those most interested in the Bill to produce it. I said that that was impossible, and that I could only produce it on the understanding that it was taken practically as an agreed Bill. Long negotiations took place with all the leading parties affected, and practically it was agreed that after the Bill passed the Committee the Report stage should be treated as agreed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Agreed by whom?

Sir A. MOND: By representatives of the registered and unregistered dentists.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the public?

Sir A. MOND: The Minister represents the public and it is in the interests of the public that the Bill should be passed. The Bill is the outcome of the work of a Departmental Committee. All these questions have been fully discussed. There was plenty of time in Committee to put down Amendments. I did not myself expect that the Bill would come on this evening, but there has been time to put Amendments on the Paper, and I have looked for them. It is not fair that the matter should now be adjourned. I cannot promise that there will ever be another opportunity for taking the Report stage. I am very glad there is such an opportunity now. To the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) I can say that if we get the Report stage now and if the hon. and gallant Member has any points to raise, I shall be glad to discuss them, and should they be of importance there might be an opportunity in another place of meeting some of his views. This Bill is badly wanted, and hon. Members know how Parliamentary business is congested.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman insists on having his Bill now, and he can get it. It is no use trying to debate the Bill because there are no Amendments on the Paper. When the right hon. Gentleman comes before the House and says that the Bill is the result of the work of a Departmental Committee which has inquired into the whole matter, and the result of an agreement among dentists and unregistered practitioners, he is not telling all the truth, although he may be strictly accurate so far as they are concerned. The Report of the Departmental Committee included a great deal more than the putting of the dentists in the same category as the doctors. It included also a free dental service. All that has been dropped. It included some form of scholarship which would enable children of the working class to become practitioners. That, too, has been dropped. Dentistry has been made a close corporation, confined, like doctoring, to the children of the middle and
upper classes, and ruling out all those who are dental mechanics. It is another closing of the door upon the working classes. The original plan of the Committee—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak on this particular Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: It is scarcely fair to put through this House a Bill of such vital public importance when so little knowledge of the Bill is in the possession of the House. I have not been on the Committee and I have only just learned, and with pleasure, that a certain agreement had been arrived at; but here is a vital public service being placed in the hands of certain men practically as a monopoly. What guarantee against monopoly charges have the public got? Are you to have the unregistered men in the East End raising their standard of fees to the flash prices of the West End? The Minister of Health has told us that he did not expect the Bill to be brought forward to-night. I think the House ought to have an opportunity of knowing the facts regarding what took place in Committee and what guarantee the public are to have against monopoly prices.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not know anything about any agreements, but I do know that owing practically to an accident we have now an opportunity of passing a very badly needed Bill. The Bill has been discussed in Committee. There was also a meeting upstairs, attended by many hon. Members, at which the Bill was explained. There has been corespondence in the "Times" on the Bill, and both sides have joined in it. If hon. Members had desired to put down Amendments for the Report Stage they have had ample time to do so.

Mr. SEDDON: I wish to endorse the statement of the last speaker. The Minister of Health has pointed out that in the early part of this Session the Bill was agreed to by all those who spoke for the registered and the unregistered. Last year the then Minister of Health introduced his Bill and there was a good deal of hostility between the various sections of unregistered men who did not belong to the same particular society. The Bill was dropped last year, but those who were directly interested, the large body of unregistered men, recognised that the
Bill was urgently needed after the experience of the War. The Medical Council took up an attitude that seemed to be extreme to the unregistered men. After negotiations the Council modified their point of view. The three or four organisations representing unregistered men had a meeting upstairs, and after a frank discussion agreed that the fight should take place in Committee and that each section representing the dentists should have an opportunity of placing upon the Order Paper Amendments embodying their objections. The fight went on upstairs in the best spirit possible, and when the Bill passed through Committee it was taken as an honourable bond by all the parties that there should be no further Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By all the parties who agreed.

Mr. SEDDON: I am convinced that, from the point of view of the community and even of the dentists-to-be, the conditions of examination are not irksome.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They will cost a candidate £1,000.

Mr. SEDDON: No, it need not cost so much. What is going on now will continue. There are thousands of dental mechanics who are not only prepared, but are making provision to meet what are the requirements of the examination, and from information I have received I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that those who are willing to receive the instruction will have it provided for them at a very low cost. The vital question is this: Here we have an issue which has been before the country for years. The mistakes of 1878 created new mistakes, but now at the last moment everybody is agreed. I do not think you will find that the mechanics, or any other section, will be opposed to placing the profession on a more equitable basis. So far as increasing the prices goes, it is a question of competition—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from the question that the Debate should be now adjourned.

Mr. SEDDON: I desire to make a final appeal to the House to pass the Bill, because it contains no injustice to anyone, but is the commencement of the work of
placing a great public service on a better basis in the interests of the population of this country.

Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Right of certain persons to be admitted to register.)

(1) The Board shall admit to the dentists register kept under the principal Act—

(b) any person who makes an application in that behalf within the interim period and satisfies the Board that he—

(iii) had attained the age of twenty-three years before the commencement of this Act;

and who within ten years from that date passes the prescribed examination in dentistry.

9.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b, iii), to leave out the words "the prescribed" ["passes the prescribed examination"], and to insert instead thereof the words "a modified."
This Clause enables those who are present unregistered to get into the sacred circle of the registered dentists and to charge the higher fees. Under paragraph (a), any person who has been seven years, immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, engaged in the practice of dentistry can get in. Under paragraph (b), any person who makes application to be put upon the register and who has for any five of the seven years, immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, engaged as his principal means of livelihood in the occupation of a dental mechanic and within 10 years from the date of starting his work as a dental mechanic passes the prescribed examination in dentistry shall be admitted to the register. What this Amendment asks for is that they shall not be called upon to pass a very stiff examination such as will be necessary for future aspirants. They have been engaged in the occupation for many years, thereby acquiring a certain facility in the practice of their art, and they should not be barred out by being set a very severe examination which will only tend to keep the charmed circle as small as ever. When I moved this Amendment in Committee I was told it
was not necessary and that the prescribed examination would be specially stated not to be a general examination for dentists, but I see there has been no provision made for any sort of easier examination for dental mechanics.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: This point was discussed in Committee. In this connection the word "modified" means nothing. How can a standard examination be modified? The word "prescribed" simply means that the examination is going to be specially prepared to meet the needs of the occasion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Whom is it going to be prepared by?

Sir A. MOND: It will be prepared by the Dental Board.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will they not have an interest in keeping these people out?

Sir A. MOND: I do not see that. Those who control medical education in this country do not fix examinations for medical students simply with the idea of preventing them from qualifying.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has heard the views of dentists on dental mechanics.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member forgets that all the different kinds of dentists will be represented on the Dental Board and also a certain number of outsiders, not dentists at all. It is not going to be left to the registered dentists to fix the examination. The matter will be under the control of the Ministry of Health, who in their interpretation of the Bill will take care to see that no unduly stiff examination is set directed against any particular class. The use of the word "modified" will not make it any better because the same people will prepare the examination in any case. The only effect of introducing the word "modified" in a Statute of this kind will be to leave everybody in doubt. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I trust the House will not agree to this Amendment. If there is one thing for which the House is famous, it is fair play to servants who have done good work. The unregistered dentists have done as good work, in many
respects, as those who have been qualified. If it is a case of going upon precedent we find that in previous Acts we have always been inclined to help those who have been in a particular business prior to the passing of an Act dealing with that business. When the Act of 1887 was passed, dealing with coal mine regulations, there was a large class of men who occupied the position of colliery managers, but who could not pass the examination then instituted, and these men got certificates of service which were tantamount to passing the examination. The dental mechanics are in a similar position, and it will be most unfair to a body of men who did good work during the War if they are precluded from the benefits of this Measure.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 16.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)

(2) In the application of this Act to Ireland, the expression "the Minister of Health" means, unless the context otherwise requires, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and any reference to a registered chemist and druggist shall include a reference to a registered druggist and to a licentiate apothecary.

(3) For the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to he an Act passed before the appointed day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3).
This raises the question of whether or not this Act shall apply to Ireland. I think it is ridiculous to apply an Act of this sort to Ireland and I see that the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is on the back of the Bill. What is the use of passing Acts for the self-government of Ireland—or the alleged self-government of Ireland—and then trying to thrust domestic legislation of this sort upon them.

Mr. SEDDON: The interested parties in Ireland want it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know the state of affairs in Ireland to-day. Ordinary social life is completely disrupted over a great area of the country and I do not think this Act will run, any more than any other Act, in a great part of Ireland.
Apart from that, it is a purely domestic matter and might well have been left to the Irish Parliaments or constituent assemblies, or whatever they may end up by having in that country. It shows a lack of a sense of humour to suggest that it should be applied to Ireland, but I presume this part of the Clause was put in when the Bill was drafted a long time ago, and the Ministry of Health does not know what is going on at the other side of the water.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: I do not know why Ireland should not have the benefit of this Bill. If they do not want it at some future date, I have no doubt they can get rid of it then. We do not anticipate that Ireland will always remain in its present disturbed condition. Further, if you were a dentist practising in Ireland, and Ireland was excluded, and if you wanted to come and practise over here in England or Scotland, you would then be unable to do so. That, I think, is a sufficiently good reason why Ireland should not be excluded. I think my hon. Friend's solicitude for Ireland might allow those practising there the possibility of earning a living on this side of the Channel. If at any time in the future the Government of Ireland decides to adopt any other course, there is time enough to do that when they have a Parliament of their own functioning.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What happens under this Bill to the American dentist? Is he to be allowed to practise here?

Sir A. MOND: The American dentist who holds degrees equivalent to the degrees of an English dentist entitling him to qualify can, of course, practise in this country, but we do not provide for dentists who do not hold equivalent degrees to come and settle down here. All that this Amendment would do would be to exclude the unregistered dentist in Ireland from the benefit of getting on the register.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
I move this as a protest against the general way in which this Bill has been approached in the House to-night. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken seems to think that this is a Bill affecting merely dentists and dental practitioners, and that all we have to consider is whether they are placated, whether they are satisfied that their interests in life, their vested interests in the practice of a profession, have been properly safeguarded. That is not the point of view from which we should look at this Bill. It is a question entirely of whether we are going to get a better dental service, and whether we are going to pay too much for getting it. The argument in favour of the Bill ought to be, not that the unregistered practitioners have got inside the charmed circle, but that the existence of this monopoly—for it will be a monopoly—will ensure a higher standard of dental practice throughout the country. I have no doubt that when hon. Members who are members of the medical profession support this Measure it is because they think it will raise the practice of dentistry, but I am not at all certain that giving to any body of people a close monopoly is likely to improve the work they do. It may be that by making the examinations sufficiently stiff they may get a higher standard, but they also make the time of training longer and more expensive, and they exclude a. certain number of intelligents in the country who might otherwise come into the practice of the profession, but who, by the cost of training required, are ruled out from the practice of the profession. I do not believe any industry or profession is really benefited in the long run by being made into a close corporation. The very fact that the competition of the American dentist is ruled out, that once you are on the register you are on the top of the educational tree, so far as the practice of your profession is concerned, means that there is no longer an incentive to improve your knowledge of your practice, and in so many cases we see that where there is a monopoly, and where people are happy in the enjoyment of that monopoly, they lose some of the enthusiasm and fire which competition often gives.
That is one side of the question. Hon. Members will say that this is going to raise the practice of dentistry, and there may be something in that, but I am certain there is a very important consideration that we ought to take into account on the other side. This Bill is undoubtedly going to raise prices. Every dental practitioner who gets on the register has got to fall in with the scale of fees given to dentists on the register. It is certain that nine-tenths of the working classes of this country—probably more—get their dentistry done at present by unregistered practitioners. Nearly every colliery village I know has its dental practitioner, but no regular dentist. These people practise the art of dental surgery. They do not do it very well, but they are cheap. These same people are going to carry on their practice as they did before, just as well or just as badly, but they are going to be able to charge much more for doing it. The public as a whole may get a better dental service in time, but it is certain that they are going to pay more for the present sort of dental service for a long time to come. The members of the Departmental Committee saw quite clearly that the public would pay for this Bill. They knew that giving the unregistered practitioners and the full dental surgeons a monopoly would certainly cause the public to pay in increased fees, and they tried to balance that off. In order to avoid any very heavy rise in dental fees, they proposed in their Report at the same time a public dental service which would naturally be much cheaper than the private practice which would spring up under this Bill.
Then they had to take into consideration another factor. They knew that under present conditions the quite poor men became first of all dental mechanics and then unregistered practitioners. The doctoring profession draws almost entirely from the middle classes, but the dental profession drew largely from the working classes. They knew quite well that once you got the present unregistered practitioner and the fully-qualified practitioners together on this register, giving them power on their board to regulate admission to the profession, that would tend to restrict admission, and keep up the standard of examination, partly because they wanted better dentistry and partly because they wanted
to keep out competition. Every monopolist hates competition more than anything else. Under those circumstances, entry to the register would mean a very heavy expense, comparable, indeed, to the expense which is incurred by a medical student before he is entitled to practise medicine. I am told that it often costs £5,000 before a medical student can start practice, and that for the dental service it costs £1,000. The Departmental Committee which inquired into this matter, and reported in favour of this Bill, reported also in favour of a public dental service to keep down costs to the public. They recommended, also, that there should be a large number of scholarships to enable sons of the working classes to become fully-qualified dentists.
The Coalition Government have taken one part of this Report, which will raise the cost to the public, and they have dropped the other two parts, which would keep down the price to the public and enable the sons of working-class people to become dental surgeons. It is not fair to the House to say that this Bill is the result of a Departmental Inquiry, and that it is an agreed Bill. That is not how we look at it. We want to see that either the whole of that Report is carried or none. I quite agree that something ought to be done in the direction of that Report. I would not mind this Bill provided we could get a public dental service and the scholarships. I think, if that Committee had been more largely composed of members of the working classes, we should have got a more radical Report even than that Committee reported. But certainly, to take out a conservative proposal to form dentists, as doctors are, into a close circle of experts, to argue with whom is almost blasphemy, and to leave out the slightly liberal provisions in that Report, seems to me to be typical of the Coalition Government, and of this we on this side of the House cannot be expected to approve.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND: My hon. and gallant Friend stated—and I do not quarrel with
him—that the real way of looking at this ought to be whether or not the dental surgery of this country could be improved. I quite agree, and this Bill hopes in time to bring that about. I would like to point out that this was proposed to be done in the original Act of 1878. There is nothing new in principle in this Bill. It is by mere accident that a large uncontrolled, unregistered, unqualified dental service has been allowed to work in this country, and one of the most difficult and important operations on the human being has been allowed to be practised by anybody who sets himself up, without any knowledge of any kind, and that the public have been entirely unprotected against this kind of thing. We are now amending the defect in that Act, and endeavouring to bring dentistry, which is an important branch of medical science, up to a higher standard. In order to do that, we are including a large number of men who have not, perhaps, got the academic, but who have the practical experience, and very liberal provision, indeed, has been made for them. The hon. and gallant Member said the only result would be to put prices up to the public. I wonder why he said that. There is nothing in the Bill to enable them to do that. The hon. and gallant Member knows that supply and demand play an important part—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not when you have a monopoly.

Sir A. MOND: Has the hon. and gallant Member seen any Bill referring to medicine which lays down any prices?

Mr. LAWSON: The solicitor to the Incorporated Dental Society suggested before the Departmental Committee that a scale of fees should be fixed.

Sir A. MOND: I think it would be a difficult proposition to try to apply a fee for a practitioner in a colliery village and a practitioner in Harley Street. After all, fees cannot be charged higher than people are able to pay. It will be impossible to extract money where it cannot be paid, and that is what is commonly overlooked. If the Bill had been to exclude a large section of those who are practising now, and creating a scarcity of dentists, I could see the force of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is what it will do.

Sir A. MOND: No; it will not do that. It will practically include everybody. Practically the same number of dentists will be in existence, and they will find that they will not be able to charge more than they did before. But in time, undoubtedly, a better class of people will go into dental practice and will raise the whole status of dentistry. My hon. and gallant Friend remarked1 that we have only raised the price to the public, and appeared to think that if only we supplied a free public dental service the public would not have to pay. A free dental service would certainly cost the public a great deal. I am not altogether opposed to that view, but the times are not propitious for carrying it out, and, further, this Bill is not the place to do it, and the only result of the rejection of this Bill would be that there would be no really good dental service. In view of the fact that the Bill is so urgently required in the best interests of the public, I do hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not persist in this Amendment and will allow me to have the Third Reading.

Mr. RAFFAN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), having delivered a most interesting speech drawing attention to matters which deserve attention, will now be satisfied to allow the Bill to go forward with the unanimous approval of the House. I agree with him that in this matter our primary concern must be the public welfare and not the position of those who practise either as registered or unregistered dentists; but as I understand the Minister in charge of the Bill, his observations on that point were used in answer to some suggestion that the unregistered practitioner would be placed in a position of disadvantage under the Bill. The Departmental Committee, which examined this question with great care, and heard a great number of witnesses, had constantly in view the public interest. It was not interested, except in so far as was necessary to reconcile opposing and divergent views, in maintaining any monopoly interests, but was interested mainly in the public welfare. The Departmental Committee had the evidence of representative Members of the Labour party, like Mr. Sidney
Webb, whose views, I believe, nearly always commend themselves to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh, do they?

Mr. RAFFAN: And an hon. Member who was highly respected in every part of this House, the late Mr. W. C. Anderson, also gave very valuable evidence. I believe the evidence of both Mr. Webb and Mr. Anderson stressed the point to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. My hon. and gallant Friend has rendered a public service in drawing attention to these two matters. In my view, this Bill is the first step towards carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. The proposals with regard to public dental service and with regard to the scholarships are not matters which could properly be put in a Bill of this kind; they are administrative matters, but in view of the statements made by the Minister of Health to-night, I hope attention will be given to them, especially in regard to scholarships, and that provision will be made in that direction. As the Departmental Committee found that legislation of this kind would render the very greatest service to the public at large, and would tend to improve the whole status of the dental profession in this country, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will now allow the Bill to pass into law, but that he will continue to press both for a public dental service and for the system of scholarships recommended by the Committee.

Major MOLSON: I would like to advocate passing this Bill in the interests of the public, and not in the interests of any branch of the profession. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) in Committee upstairs advocated that a great many more should be admitted into the dental profession, and his view was supported, and I am sorry to find that he comes down on the Floor of the House now and wishes to wreck the Bill. The Bill has been supported by the British Dental Association in a most self-sacrificing and generous manner. They have advocated the admission of unqualified men into the profession for the good of the profession, and not for any purpose of a monopoly. As to the question of a monopoly, my hon. and gallant Friend seems to forget that by this Bill we are going to double the number of qualified
dentists in this country, and if we increase the supply surely that is the best way of reducing the price.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The quality.

Major MOLSON: The quality will improve. The object of this Bill is to protect you and the public from unqualified men and from the disastrous effects of unskilled work on the mouth. I am sure we all wish to have this Bill passed as an agreed Bill in the interests of the country. We have considered it upstairs, and we have tried to carry the Bill, irrespective of party politics, as it is entirely for the benefit of the public, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member, from, I am sure, merely a spirit of opposition, is now opposing this Bill. Upstairs the Labour party advocated various Amendments. The British Dental Association most generously, as I consider, gave way and did not oppose the Amendments of the Labour party, and for this reason I hope the Labour party will not continue to oppose the Bill, and that we shall pass it as an agreed Measure, not for the benefit of one profession, but for the benefit of the public.

Mr. BRIANT: I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the discussion. Although I had no intention of voting against the Report stage I do wish to voice my protest against the Bill. It contains many provisions which seem to me of extreme danger to the public. I am not particularly interested in dentists, though I think they are dealt with very hardly in this Bill. It will have cost a good dentist, it is estimated, nearly £1,000 before he is fully qualified for his profession. There are thousands of men who have spent their time and their money to make themselves fully qualified, and under this Bill they are, without any differentiation whatever, put on exactly the same status as a man who may not have had any experience whatever and no training, who may have been, for all we know, and has in some cases, been a butcher or a blacksmith. That is not fair to the dentists. I am still more upset by feeling that the public has no protection. The only protection the public has is that some at least know the difference between the man who has qualifications and the man who has not. Between the man who can put up some designation outside his shop or house
which says what are his qualifications, and the man who can and does now stick up the word "professor"—whatever that may mean no one knows—but which passes among the ignorant men going down the street, somewhat stupidly if you like—which, I say, passes amongst these men who imagine that a man who makes the biggest display is the more skilled dentist. The general public ought to have, as I suggested in Committee, by Amendment, a separate list. The public ought to know to whom they are going. I do not want to debar the public going to any man they choose, but they ought to know who the man is. As it is, the average member of the public will not, know whether the dentist he is under is on the roll and qualified or not. The present position is not fair to the public. It is the perpetuation of what has amounted to a grave and gross scandal. I am speaking here from personal experience, not certainly of my own mouth, but many have come to me at different times who have been, one can only use the word "swindled" by the advertising dentists. Over and over again poor people have come to me and told me that they have paid three guineas for a denture and in order to get the money quickly the unskilled man has fitted the denture a long time before the mouth was in a condition to have it fitted; the consequence was that after say, four months, the teeth did not fit, and the patient has been asked for another two or three guineas to have the thing put right. As a matter of fact, if there was some separate designation as we suggest, and you named the wholly qualified dentist as a "qualified dentist" and the other man as a "dental practitioner," then the public generally would know which was which and to go to the one they chose. I do not want to overstate the point. There are men who have not the technical qualifications who from long experience are skilled, but it does seem a great mistake that men should be admitted who would not for a moment be admitted in any other profession, say the medical or the legal, and in thousands too. In fact in this case the majority in future will be men about whom there is no proof of any qualification except they have been in some sort of practice for a certain number of years. I am anxious that the Bill should go through. I think it is a gross injustice to
the qualified dentist. I do not, however, wish now to obstruct the Bill, which I hope will be more useful in actual working than appears to me to be likely to be the case from the actual wording of the Bill. The House, I say, is committing itself to a scheme to which it would not have committed itself for any other profession. I only want to say further that the only thing which reconciles me to the Bill is that it will prevent additional and further unqualified men. That is a great-recommendation, in fact the only recommendation for the Bill to me, and that in course of time the unqualified men will drop out, but we shall have to bear the class of dentists who will be on the present register. There are many grave objections to the Bill, but taking it all in all, and anxious as I am that there should be some improvement, and that if this Bill does not go through it will defer the date for any improvement, I do not care to vote against the Bill.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Gilmour.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to take this opportunity—for there are few opportunities in this House of raising matters of the greatest public importance—of asking the Leader of the House or other Minister if they have any information in regard to the situation in Asia Minor, particularly Turkey in Asia. I refer, of course, to the fact of the hostilities between Greece and Turkey. I wish very briefly to lay before the House the reasons why this matter should be settled as soon as possible, and why the Government should strain every nerve to bring about peace at the earliest possible moment. The question seems to me to fall under three particular heads. In the first place it is the fact that the hostilities between Turkey and Greece are most injurious to British trade. I can well remember the time when the Port of
Smyrna was full of British ships. Anatolia was the great market for British goods, particularly textiles, and there was the transport of all sorts of agricultural machinery and so on, and particularly textiles. To-day, owing to the effect of the fighting, and also the state of uncertainty, trade obviously is almost impossible. In the few districts where the Kemelists have restored tranquillity, owing to our dubious attitude during the last eighteen months, they are refusing British merchants to land, or British ships to approach their coast. Therefore from what I call the lowest point of view these questions are of tremendous importance to us.
Might I say in passing that those politicians in this country, and in this House, who look to a great Hellenic Empire being established in Asia Minor seem to forget that the Greek merchants consistently undersell and outwit our own merchants in Turkey and Greece; our trade has suffered in the past from their depredations, and is likely to do so in the future? On the other hand, our trade in relation to the Turks, and the inhabitants of Turkey in Asia, has been good in the past, and extraordinarily valuable to this country. From that point of view alone it would not be an unmixed blessing by any means if Greece was turned out of Asia Minor. There is another point, and that is the danger of Great Britain being drawn into this struggle and further expenditure being incurred. We have at Constantinople a small garrison, and we have other posts, I believe, in various places along the shores of the Sea of Marmora. The possibility may arise any day, in fact it has already arisen, of these posts being seriously menaced by the Kemalist forces. Obviously they will have to be supported, and possibly reinforced, and then withdrawn in the face of hostile forces and possibly with great loss. In any case the situation is full of menace, the papers are talking about a new war, but it is a war that has continued ever since the Armistice, and the longer it continues the greater the menace. This is no time to embark upon new expenditure.

Mr. STURROCK: I beg to call attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I quite appreciate the kindly thought of the
hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock), and I shall probably have an opportunity of returning his compliment when he finds himself in a similar position to that in which I am now placed.

Captain ELLIOT: Is this not rather ungracious on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, because if we had not kept a House for him he would not have been able to make his speech?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member may argue that point as a matter of taste, but not as a matter of Order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then there is the question of humanity involved. The Kemalists must be badly supplied with medicines and drugs of all sorts, and we know how British prisoners suffered from this cause. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) might consider that aspect of the matter. The sanitary conditions behind the Turkish front must of necessity be very serious in a wild country like Anatolia. The world is absolutely sick of all this fighting. We cannot point to one good result of all the fighting we have had for the last seven years. These two peoples are now locked in deadly struggle in Asia. I have asked repeatedly since we assembled what steps the Government were taking to bring an end to this state of affairs, and the answer has always been that the Greeks and the Turks are being left to fight this matter out. I submit that without covert promises and some measure of moral support the Greeks would not have persisted with this policy, and that support, I believe, comes from this country.
The French and the Italians are opposed to Greek imperialism in Asia Minor. The Italians have withdrawn their troops from Adana, and they are in a position of great favour and friendship with the Turks themselves, and the Turkish merchants and business men are benefiting accordingly. I think it is time that we took a leaf out of the Italians' book. I think we should be well advised to withdraw our garrisons from Constantinople. We may not be able to withdraw all the naval squadrons, but they should be cut down as low as possible. After all, we are the rulers of the greatest number of Moslems of any
country in the world. Again, I wish to reiterate what I believe is the determination of the people of this country not to be drawn into any further squabbles in Asia Minor, and for these reasons I think I am justified in asking for further information from the Government.

10.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: For once I find myself not in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. It is somewhat a matter of indifference to me whether the Greeks and the Turks are cutting each other's throat. My feeling in the matter is that I do not want them to start cutting the throats of our troops. The British Army on the eastern side of the Bosphorus runs the risk of being mixed up with these squabbles in Asia Minor. The Greeks, in spite of the assistance of King Constantine, may find themselves engaged in actual warfare with the Turks without the Government in Downing Street being able to interfere or enter into the argument at all. So long as the Greeks were in any way our Allies, and so long as they were guided by M. Venizelos, there was a certain amount of community of interests between us and the Greeks, but I do not think there is one man in a million now who would give to King Constantine either moral or material support in this trouble. It would be intensely unpopular in this country if in any way we were involved in this struggle in Asia Minor side by side with the Greeks against the Turks. It has got to be recognised that King Constantine, being so closely connected with the Hohenzollerns and the sympathies of the common people of England, at any rate, being distinctly hostile to that Royal House, we will not support him, morally or materially, in his fight against the Turks. This is no new feeling. Another consideration we have to take into account is, that both the French and the Italians have withdrawn, or undertaken to withdraw, their troops from Asia Minor. We see in to-day's paper that an agreement has been come to between the Kemalists and the French. The Italians have also come to terms. In my opinion discretion would have been the better part of valour, and it would have been wiser for us to follow the example of the French and the Italians by clearing out of that cockpit of Asia, leaving the Greeks and Turks to settle
their disputes between themselves. My hon. and gallant Friend alluded to one consideration which does not appear to have been taken into account by the Foreign Office in the moral support they have given to the Greeks. Daily the Government receive agonised entreaties from the Government of India to stop their present conduct towards the Turks and to assist in handing back Smyrna and Thrace to Ottoman rule, so as to assist the work of the authorities of India in dealing with the Khalifat agitation by taking a broad Mussulman attitude in these negotiations. That consideration does not affect the French or the Italians, but it does affect us very much, indeed, and it is an additional reason for prompt consideration on the part of the Government.
As to what can be done in the present situation in Asia Minor, there are three courses only open to the Government. One is to definitely form an alliance with Constantine and to co-operate with our troops in Asia Minor to stiffen the Greek defences on the Isthmian Peninsula. That would be a definite policy, and the War Office would be able to tell the Government how many divisions would be required, while the Government could inform the House how much additional money would be necessary in order to carry out that policy. It is not a policy which I would recommend, but at any rate it is a forcible, determined, and clear policy. The second policy is the one which the Government are following—waiting on events. It is a gambling policy. They do not know from day to day whether the Turks are going to drive back the Greeks or whether the Greeks will succeed in defeating the Turks. But meanwhile they are risking the lives of our men out there. They are courting a disaster which might involve us in an expensive and bloody war far from our base in Asia Minor. It might be a cheaper policy or it might eventually prove a more expensive policy. The third alternative is one which I imagine the hon. Gentleman would follow if he were permitted, and in which he would have the almost unanimous support of the House, as well as the unanimous support of the Government of India. It is to withdraw our troops across the Straits from Constantinople and Thrace, and to induce the Kemalists to agree to the
surrender of Smyrna and to the autonomy of Thrace. We have suggested terms to these two combatants which neither of them has accepted. Yet we still have our troops there. I should say we could now bring the necessary pressure to bear by telling the Greeks that unless they consent to these terms and to the surrender of Smyrna and Thrace—unless they agree to meet the Kemalists on these lines, the British forces will be withdrawn from Turkey in Europe and in Asia, as well as from Constantinople. If that pressure was not enough it should be remembered that they owe us very considerable sums of money, and we could make it clear to the Greeks that so long as the Constantine rule continues in that country, and so long as they persist in turning down Venizelos, they can expect no assistance from us. They must first come to terms with the Turks on the lines we have laid down. I cannot understand what madness it is that makes us, both in Constantinople and outside, consistently support a policy which is not ours and which runs counter to the interests of a very large body of British subjects. The situation is daily becoming more acute, and I hope the Government will come to a thoroughly sound decision to withdraw British troops at once unless the Greeks come to terms with the Kemalists.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It is a great pity that the example of France and what she is doing in Silesia should have been held up by our Government as an example which they ought to follow. What France is doing in Silesia is to clear out of the country and leave the subject races there, whom she had undertaken to defend, to suffer any fate and to be exterminated at the will of the Kemalists. I hope that such an example will never be followed by our Government. We have heard a great deal about this matter this evening, but we have had nothing said with regard to the obligations which we undertook in the War to these subject races. They were our Allies, and they suffered greatly for it. They suffered the most horrible punishment on account of their alliance with us. I sincerely hope that the Government in any policy they may decide to pursue will bear in mind the obligations under which they are to these subject races, and will remember that they have again and again pledged them-
selves in express words to see that these people are delivered from the savage tyranny of the Turks, and that they will not simply, because it is more convenient and cheaper, withdraw our troops from Constantinople and leave the Turks once more to lord it in these regions and do what they like with the subject races. That is what this proposal comes to. It might be a cheap policy at the moment, but it would not be honourable and it would not conduce to the prestige or future happiness of this country. On the contrary, I am certain it would mean terrible suffering to these races in the future, terrible expense to ourselves, and the utmost loss of honour to Great Britain.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am not quite clear why the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has raised this question this evening. It is, as the House is aware, an exceedingly delicate question. I do not want, in replying on Foreign Office questions, to insist top often that the occasion is not the most appropriate one for discussing a question of policy, but undoubtedly the situation as between the Greeks and the Kemalists is such that no advantage can be derived at the present moment from its discussion in this House or, I venture to say, in any other Assembly of the Allied and friendly nations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have been told that for 18 months.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, but the situation has not always been what it is at present. Such a diversity of opinion has been expressed among the three hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House that they really have left but little to reply to. It was refreshing to find my two hon. and gallant Friends, for the moment at least, in dissension upon a subject of foreign policy, while the hon. Member (Mr. A. Williams) differs in toto, as I gather, from both of them. It is really wrong to suppose, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) seems to think, that this matter has only just now, even if it has already, engaged the earnest attention of the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend said, in terms of the utmost solemnity, that the situation really
requires prompt attention on the part of the Foreign Office and of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is getting worse.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend knows enough about the Foreign Office to be able to assure himself that this subject has engaged the most earnest, and anxious attention of the Department which I have the honour to represent, and of the Government as a whole, for a long time past. It is not necessary for me to remind the House why that should be so. It must be clear to every hon. Member that the settlement sought to be achieved under the Treaty of Sevres is in jeopardy in consequence of recent developments in the Near East. The situation, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says, is unquestionably full of menace, and I am disposed to agree that in all probability there is a great deal of suffering behind the lines of the Kemalist Army, and generally in the whole theatre of war. But my hon. and gallant Friend should not, I think, have suggested that there has been covert support from this country to the one side or the other. I do not know exactly why the word "covert" should be used, or how it can with propriety be used in a discussion in this House. What does my hon. and gallant Friend mean by "covert support"?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As I am asked, may I say that what I mean is that it has not been divulged to this House or to the public, like many other acts of the Foreign Office or of the Prime Minister's Secretariat in Foreign Affairs.

Mr. D. HERBERT: It does not exist.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend behind me gives the only possible answer, namely, that it does not exist.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: King Constantine said that he had our moral support.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid that that saying has not reached me. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend was in the House this afternoon when the Lord Privy Seal replied to certain very searching and direct questions on this very point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked one myself.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I thought so. That makes it all the more surprising to me that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised this question this evening, and that he should suggest, after the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, that there has been any kind of covert support to one side or the other.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I could not get an answer. We were told that there was no financial or military support. I asked whether there were other forms of support besides loans and the supply of munitions or soldiers. I then asked whether there were any other forms of support, and the answer was rather evasive. I make no complaint, because it was a supplementary question.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to my recollection, the answer given by my right hon. Friend—which I followed, as in duty bound, with the very greatest care—was a most definite statement that His Majesty's Government had observed neutrality throughout these proceedings, which excludes the possibility of the sort of covert assistance to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers; and, moreover, that the Government were engaged, according to the best of their ability and in concurrence with the Allies, in bringing about an accommodation between the contending parties. I should be the last to deprecate any free discussion of foreign policy when that can be conducted without injury to the purpose that we all have at heart. I am not myself in the least in favour of any kind of obscurantist policy in regard to foreign affairs, but I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that nothing is really served by raising a point of this kind in such a Debate as this, especially after the quite categorical assurances given by the Leader of the House this afternoon.

MINISTERIAL OFFICES.

Captain W. BENN: I apologise for raising the matter to which I am going to refer, but our opportunities for discussion are so limited that we have to take advantage of a casual occasion of this kind to ventilate grievances when they arise. We have heard a good deal in the House about the salary of the Minister without Portfolio. Hon. Gentlemen are
discontented because they allege that one Member of the Government is paid for no specified duties. There is a great deal to be said from that point of view, but I cannot help thinking, without imputing any motives, that that Minister has been selected rather on account of his political associations than because he is the only example of the abuse of which complaint is made. In looking down the list of Ministers one finds that the Minister without Portfolio is by no means the only example to be found. There are at least four other sinecures, as far as official duties are concerned, although some of them, of course, involve heavy duties, such as the office of the Lord Privy Seal. One particular example is the continuance of the practice of having Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury. It is a very small matter, but I doubt whether we shall ever have an opportunity of discussing or voting upon it in the House of Commons.
As hon. Members know, Estimates are apt to be selected in order of urgency for the 20 days which the Rules of the House provide for Supply. That does not give us an opportunity of selecting for discussion all the Estimates which rightly deserve consideration, and on which we might desire to divide, so that it is probable that this Vote will never come before the House in Committee of Supply during the whole of this Session. I wish it were possible to put down this Vote and those of other sinecure offices with the Vote of the Minister without Portfolio, so that we might have an opportunity of judging of all the issues together, but as that seems extremely improbable, I am forced to raise the matter now on the Motion for Adjournment.
What possible defence can there be for dividing an office, which is itself a sinecure, into two offices paid at equal rates? That is the problem which the House has to consider. I myself was once a Lord of the Treasury, and know, as everyone else knows, that there are no departmental duties connected with the office. It has grown to be the practice of Parliament that certain Members should be appointed to these sinecures for the purpose of assisting in the party work and organisation of the party which happens to be in power at the moment. I am not questioning that practice. I do not know whether, in times of tremendous financial strain, such as the present, the
expenditure of money on party organisation is justified or not. What I do complain of is an extension of the practice which does seem to be going beyond any possible point that can be justified. No doubt the answer, if one is given at all, will be that this practice was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, during the War. I do not think that is an answer at all. I never criticised any expenditure during the War or any arrangements made during the War. I considered during the War that everyone was, very often in rather a chaotic fashion, doing his best to get the War won. I never criticised even any of those reports made afterwards of squandering and profligacy in public expenditure. It was so, of course. An entirely new experiment, as far as our time is concerned, was instituted during 1915 and for that purpose two Patronage Secretaries were appointed. What is the justification for their continuance? The only justification is either the one I have referred to, and which could easily be disposed of, or that it is a very small sum, and that it does not matter. Or there is a third reason, which would not be a justification, which is that the party in power requires one Whip, who most efficiently and courteously carries out his duty in the House, and another who spends his time in the country organising the party ion elections. That is an expenditure which cannot be justified. I would invite the Leader of the House, if he intends to do me the honour to reply to me, to explain whether it is not possible now to bring to an end this small but significant unjustified expenditure of public funds.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I had not already intended to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I could not resist the appeal he has just made. I spend my time when he speaks in mingled admiration of his zeal and his ubiquity in public controversy, and in wonder at the shortness of his memory and the profound distinction he draws between those things which are permissible when a Government is in office, which he feels enabled to support and those things which are permissible when we change sides, and the Government no longer retains his confidence. For myself, there is a certain crumb of comfort to be picked up from
his table. I observe that his particular animosity is reserved for the friends whom he has left and not for his old opponents.

Captain BENN: There is no animosity at all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me with draw the word. Let me say I observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels it his bounden duty to criticise in particular the friends he has left and not his old opponents. This evening he spoke so nicely of the Patronage Secretary, who is drawn from the party with which I am more immediately associated. He finds no fault with his salary or with his discharge of his duties. It is my right hon. Friend with whom he was so lately associated (Mr McCurdy) whose very existence is now an offence. I hope he will get over these little prejudices and judge both my colleagues with an equal measure of amenity and consideration. If he does he will see that there is good reason for the course the Government have taken. I certainly would not put in the plea for any unnecessary salary in these days that it is such a little one. That is not the ground of my defence. Neither would I base my defence solely upon the fact that the right hon. Member for Paisley initiated this system of Joint Patronage Secretaries.

Captain BENN: During the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, during the War. I quite agree that many things were necessary during the War which are not necessary now. Certain things which were initiated during the War and which have survived the War might rightly be brought under review in view of present circumstances. Let us consider this matter on its merits, and in judging the arrangement on its merits let me ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider two things: first, why the right hon. Member for Paisley initiated this arrangement, and, secondly, whether if he was right in initiating the arrangement then—and I do not think that the conscience of the late Junior Lord of the Treasury was greatly oppressed by the existence of two Patronage Secretaries during the War—

Captain BENN: I did not think about it then.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I admit at once that my hon. and gallant Friend was,
for the most part, engaged in doing much more valuable service for his country. If he would consider why it was arranged I think he would see, not that there is less reason for it now, but that there is more. He has said that during the War he was not inclined to criticise anything that was done. That was the general attitude of the House. No doubt in certain respects the work of the House became extraordinarily heavy, because of the abnormal demands made upon it; but so far as the organisation of Government business was concerned, no Government, certainly no Government in my memory, ever could so confidently count upon the support of the House, and upon having their business facilitated for them as could the succeeding Governments during the War. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley found it necessary to make this arrangement. Why? Because the support of the Government depended upon a union of parties, and it was necessary for the smooth working of the machinery that that union of parties should be represented in the Government and in that particular branch of the Government's business, the Patronage Secretaryship to the Treasury. We cannot count, and my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that we ought not to count, on the same forbearance and the same absence of criticism or of friction as Governments received by reason of the Coalition during the War. Nevertheless, the Government which sits on these benches is the creation of the Coalition, and combines elements as distinct in origin as those which formed the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, in which I had the honour to serve, and, accordingly, the circumstances which caused this arrangement of the Joint Patronage Secretaryship to be brought into operation is not merely in existence to-day with the same force as before, but with even greater force.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about a number of sinecures. I understood that a sinecure was an office to which no work was attached. There may be sinecures in the sense that the original duties of certain offices have disappeared, but the holders of these offices have other duties assigned to them, so that they are not holders of sinecures. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means persons who draw salaries without doing work, then
of all against whom the charge could conceivably be brought there are none who work harder, who are more the servants, I might almost say the slaves, of the House than the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury. In my very early years I had the honour to be Junior Whip to the Liberal Unionist party in Opposition. That was an unpaid post. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would describe it as a sinecure. I have never been sorry that I had that opportunity, as it taught me a great deal, but it meant very hard work, even as a Junior Whip in the junior branch of a Coalition, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the present Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury in the circumstances of to-day do not earn their salaries, then I expect my hon. and gallant Friend himself when he becomes Prime Minister will pass a self-denying ordinance and take no salary and insist, which he will probably find more difficult, that none of his colleagues shall receive any remuneration from public funds. For if the Patronage Secretaries do not give a day's work for a day's salary I do not know anyone who does.

Captain BENN: They do give a day's work to their party.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And to the House, and as long as Parliament works through party—and I am sufficiently a believer in party to think that if the House of Commons abandons the party system and breaks up into groups and interests—

Captain BENN: Coalitions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —it will be a disaster. I am glad that the Government rests upon a firm Coalition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has included Coalitions as groups and parties. Is he quite sure that he is not a member of a Coalition now—in opposition to a Coalition? If not, it is because the two parties cannot agree upon a common policy, because they do not mean the same thing. We on this side do mean the same thing. We pursue our purposes in common, and we take the measures and have the offices necessary for the purpose.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Ten o'clock.